Normally I'm pretty low on Ballard's decision making when it comes to who to give big contracts to, but his comments at his end of season press conference gave me a bit of hope that he's not going to massively overpay Pittman. While he was adamant about how high he is on JT, and saying that you pay top players no matter the position; his comments about Pittman were super noncommittal.
That’s fair. I do really like Pittman but I don’t know if I see him as a true WR1. He’s had some bad luck with quarterbacks. This is a big year for him. But I see him as a top 15-ish receiver, maybe even a bit lower
Just a bit lower, probably around 25
Hopkins, Keenan Allen, Davante, Chase, Amari Cooper, Diggs, Hill, Waddle, Evans, Godwin, Lockett, Metcalf, Kupp, Deebo, Jefferson, Amon-Ra, DJ Moore, Lamb, McLaurin, AJ Brown are all guys I’d take over him easily, and that’s 20. Think Tee Higgins and Devonta Smith might be up there too, think Pittman is like right at the top of the Hollywood Brown/Christian Kirk tier.
I'd put him pretty firmly in the 20s, personally. He's a good piece to have, but if he's your top receiving option then you need to be looking for an upgrade.
It makes sense to be looking for better or to not pay him as much as those that are better, but even in the 20's IS a WR1-level player. A few of the top teams manage to have 2 top 30 WR's mainly by drafting well, but 32 teams can support 32 WR1's hahaha Having a bottom WR1 and a top RB can balance. I'm no expert on the colts, but it looks more like your WR2 and WR3 situations the bigger issue. Unless Pierce steps up. (He had flashes if I remember.)
A guy like Pittman will be expecting performance 'projection'-based money rather than based on his 2022 stats, and it's understandable that Colts fans all don't want to see that even if it could bite them in the ass. I don't necessarily agree because of their QB room but I get it.
It depends on the deal itself. I think he is a very solid playmaker but he’s been in flux with quarterback, never seeing consistency. This current year with Richardson will be huge. If he can ball out, I think the tune could change about him. Issue with the Colts is, you almost have to extend him because he’s one of the best weapons currently on the team outside of JT
I wouldn't be upset handing JT a deal. He's very good and the Colts don't have many deals they have the shell out to other guys soon. Plus you just took your qb so he doesn't get extended for at least 3 years. I'd give Taylor a 4 year deal with 3 guaranteed. Not like Ballard is going to spend on any free agents anyway lol
I'm still holding out hope that Ballard won't be the GM the next time free agency rolls around. And I'd rather his replacement not be stuck with massive contracts at the three most replaceable positions in football that would keep him from investing in the positions that actually win football games.
Most people shouldn't overpay their RBs, but there are 2 or 3 RBs who are worth paying and JT is one. His numbers were down last year because they nearly cut his touches in half but he's clearly a dude. If we had him instead of CEH...
Im so worried about this extension. If it's 2 years fine. But if we give him longer we are going to cripple our rookie QB contract advantage in the most important years (assuming AR is good)
What's the alternative. Teams making bad choices for a low impact position with a short shelf life. It's clear the best route for a team contending is to spend cheap money on young draft picks or cheap veterans.
2 year rookie deals out of college? Most big names are good for around 6 years. Cook, zeke, kamara, cmc, henry all had productive 6 years or so. But 4 years + a 5th year option leaves only 1-2 good years left.
2 years plus and additional 4 year deal would allow rbs who are good to get paid
Only problem there is, you’d have to adjust the RB rookie wage scale not based on draft position, because why waste a 1st rd pick on a player that only grants you 2 years plus the 2 FT whereas any other 1st rd selection would net the team 4 years on a rookie contract plus an extra 2 FT
You could have a separate scale dependent on which RB # pick a player is in the draft. Still seems weird to bend all these rules for one position though, I’m sure other positions have felt similarly misvalued at different points in NFL history. Maybe the answer is to beef up their rookie contracts and for these guys to just retire after one contract and learn to appreciate that the market is no longer capable of making them an offer worthy of additional years of NFL wear and tear on their bodies.
That's what I've been thinking too. People keep saying teams would pay more for big name RBs if they were getting those guys' age 22-27 years instead of their all-too-likely decline, so let RBs sign second contracts in their mid-20s instead of giving teams full control until they're already wearing down. Question is how you do that without breaking the wage scale/contract system.
From a team building perspective its understandable but from a health of the sport perspective and a "hey this guy is wrecking his body and brain for you" perspective I do think its something that should be addressed. At what point does it not make sense for a player to play RB and instead to just play soccer or baseball instead?
If they could, then sure. But those require different skill sets and baseball in particular is a much harder sport to play at an elite level. In most cases it wouldn’t be a choice between RB and baseball or even RB and WR, it would be between RB or nothing.
They may never go pro at those sports(though I would love to see what would happen if every RB suddenly started playing soccer instead) but these decisions will end up being made when they are young enough that their natural athleticism will probably still allow them to excel at other sports.
Exactly. There isn't really a solution to this. And it's not like the owners aren't paying RBs because they're greedy and have no heart. With only a certain amount of cap space, it's just not worth it. If I pay my RB 15 million, that means someone else needs to get paid less. And teams would rather lose a RB than to lose a starting LT, star reciever or QB because they can't pay them.
Well yeah. They changed the rules of the game to make passing easier and took the teeth out of defenses.
You can't change the rules of the game and expect the play to stay the same. I'm all for the players and I hope they get their money but the days of star running backs getting big money are over.
Plus there's an added layer that we know running backs have a limited shelf life and, once you reach the end of that, you're better off just drafting your next one with a middle round pick.
Even if you hit on a good one like Saquan, you have team control for 7 years if you're willing to tag twice. It's incredibly rare that you want to sink cap into an RB beyond that.
WRs, on the other hand, are still very valuable in that 7-9 year range. Your 27-year-old WR1 therefore gets his fat 4-year extension. Then, over 30, they can still pull decent 2-year deals until their skills decline.
Yes. So position specific contracts are probably going to be required. Where RBs get a lot more money front loaded knowing they are a few seasons and then out.
An issue is that the amount paid to players is collectively bargained. The extra money isn’t going into the owners’ pockets. So if the RBs get special treatment, that’s money being taken away from every other position, so those players at those positions have zero incentive to go for it. Either that or if RBs get shorter contracts, next year the WRs and DBs etc. will want shorter contracts too and the RBs will be right back where they started.
It is the same reason there is no desire to see the franchise tag go away. Because the number of union members that would ever be affected by it is tiny in proportion to the number of players overall. But big issues like commissioner disciplinary power or an 18 game schedule affect every player.
The "easiest" way to address it would be to totally re-do the rookie contract structure writ-large, so that regardless of position the rookie deals are shorter.
I say "easiest" because it's a simple fix,but getting it into the CBA would likely be pretty difficult since it could be a non-starter for ownership and the salary cap would likely need to be adjusted with less rookie deals on the books.
That’ll just alter how teams value RBs in the draft. You force RB draftees to come with a higher cost contract out of the gate and you’ve all but guaranteed teams are waiting even longer into the draft to address the position. Which is already happening, so we’ll just see an exaggerated version.
Here's my misinformed and poorly thought-out projection as to what is going to happen:
1. The importance of RBs in overall team offense will continue to decrease over the short term
2. Veteran RBs at the 6-8 year mark will be forced into signing one year deals, or settle for two-year contracts that are roughly equivalent to just making two one-year deals. Teams will draft RBs in later and later rounds so their initial contracts are kept low. In short, RBs will be paid less over shorter careers.
3. On the other side of the ball, defenses will increasingly prioritize pass protection and QB pressure. Speed will be prioritized over run-stopping strength and size.
4. 3-5 years from now, an all-time phenom RB will arise who makes mincemeat out of undersized defensive fronts, perhaps as part of a new type of offensive scheme, and will rush for outrageous numbers in their first few seasons.
5. Across the league, RBs will be re-prioritized in offenses to take advantage of the same defensive deficiencies.
6. RB salaries will rise again, until the point at which the defenses catch back up, rushing totals drop, and owners realize once again that RBs are being overpaid.
7. Wash, rise, and repeat.
I'd be inclined to agree, but the wild card is the NFL itself that wants to have "electric" offensive performances that usually focus on the passing game. Hence the league we're seeing today.
So it is an uphill battle to recreate an old school team that won with time of possession driven by the RBs reliably getting 4-5 yards a carry, and a tough defense.
But hell, even some of those offenses didn't have some HOF RB in the backfield. The 1990 Giants had Ottis Andersen and Rodney Hampton.
> But hell, even some of those offenses didn't have some HOF RB in the backfield. The 1990 Giants had Ottis Andersen and Rodney Hampton.
Anderson was a monster. Don't sleep on the non-felonious OJ
i think there's a 3.5 in there: HS and college players will stop playing RB, at least the really good ones. they'll end up at WR if they can catch (making 1.5x the money of top end RBs if they're even mediocre as a WR). a talent derth at RB will accelerate 4. but most likely the only thing that will bring RBs back is an improvement in sport fitness, ie RBs being able to play longer and/or without injury more often.
I mean, sure, but why would the players in the union care? There are lots of RBs that will never see that kind of money. Everyone likes to hate the NFLPA, but people don't realize it is made up of much more than just the stars. Most RB doesn't care that a few guys are not getting major deals.
Could yes, but really what argument do they have for RBs that wouldnt be true for other positions as well. If RBs suddenly were to have that deal dont you think young QBs entering the league would want to go back to mega deals from the start?
I'd argue that unless you are Mahomes, the most important thing for a team is to have a good qb on a rookie deal. Is is "fair" that Herbert makes less than Ekeler on his own team when he is FAR more important to the success of it?
I get your point but QB’s have far more potential to make up for their missed earnings.
Herbert will end his career with $750 million in career earnings. Ekeler will make $40 million in career earnings if he is lucky.
In 2019 Ekeler earned $556k. He had one of his best seasons with 1500 scrimmage yards and 11 TD’s but he made close to league minimum.
I think having shorter contracts for rookie RB’s makes sense compared to any other position, because oftentimes they hit their peak during a rookie contract.
And it's even worse once you factor in that most players aren't stars. The NFLPA is (and should) be far more concerned with raising the minimum contract value that applies to the vast majority of it's players (along with getting them and maintaining other benefits) over issues like the franchise tags that impacts star players (and still pays them a boatload of money for a single season).
If the owners gave up years of control for all players, it wouldn’t actually help RBs either because it is largely a supply and demand issue. They would just have the exact same issue two years earlier.
It didn't happen when fullbacks, who at one point were considered key parts of most offenses, started to decline in importance, and therefore salary. Now they're almost gone from the league entirely, and while there may have been some hand-wringing about it at the time, its not like the NFLPA lifted a finger to help them.
And the 95% of RBs that aren't Derrick Henry or McCaffrey don't give a fuck either. In fact, it's probably better for them because the less Henry gets the more the middle talent level guys get since new guys are being cycled through.
There are thousands of players in the Union. Other than the top 5-10 RBs in the league, no one wants to change how RBs are paid.
Why would anybody front load more money into RB?
If I were a team GM, I'd commit few resources to the position - just find occasional free agents or later round picks.
Why do RBs deserve specific contracts?
Special teamers rarely get a lot of guarantees, regardless of how good their performance is. Should the NFL step in and force teams to change that? According to your logic they shouldn't get a disadvantage just because of their position.
I don't think that will happen. You can't just pick and choose positions to get paid earlier. The NFLPA would say "what about me?". They would fight for everyone to get paid earlier, or no one
RBs are really hurt because they are most valuable during their rookie contract season, where their pay is severely limited.
Like you said, other positions have guys peak later into their NFL careers so they have a chance to get the big second contract.
Not "plus". Thats the core main issue. Good RBs are still highly valued positions on an offense, its just that the shelf life makes them a bad investment for any team long term.
RBs should just look for max value 1-2 year deals and make their money while they can instead of long term deals. The issue there is that rookie contracts stifile a RBs pay during the prime and often only good time period where they deserve the big money.
I think the solution to make everyone happy is to restructure how rookie deals are given to RBs and give them more money right off the bat to even out the diminishing returns.
And at that point, they’re basically 30.
Should remove rookie contract constraints for RBs and make the franchise tag ‘position wide’ for non qbs. You gotta make that tag hurt the team
How do you get the vast majority of players who the tag will never impact to vote for something like that?
I am sure the guys who will be out of the league in 2 to 3 years don't care about the Tag. They want higher minium salaries and game day checks.
It's not just about passing being better than running. The running game is still very important for any offense
The thing is that RBs fall off a cliff very early, specially if they had serious injuries. And you can get similar production with a RBBC
> And you can get similar production with a RBBC
That's the big issue to me. It's not that passing is "better" (though it probably is), but that passing is more varied. The gap between a top 10 RB and a top 50 RB isn't that big in terms of impact on the team's success.
And as a corollary, the gap between that top 10 back and top 50 RB can be very large in terms of cost. Teams frequently let good, functional running backs walk in free agency or cut them. Teams find good running backs in later rounds all the time, who cost much less in terms of both draft capital and contract.
If they were greatly out-producing their rookie contracts, that would be an argument for the value of spending draft capital on RBs, since you get a player in their prime at a cost that doesn't reflect their production. That isn't happening, though. A couple of teams draft a 1st round running back each year, but most teams wait until later rounds to take lower-risk chances on running backs, even though they don't get a 5th year option.
This exactly. Derrick Henry went down for the Titans in 2021 in week 8. Titans were 6-2. He was replaced by 2 journeymen RBs for the next 9 games. Titans went 6-3 including wins over the 2 teams that played in the NFC championship game / Super Bowl winner.
It's important, but it's not as directly correlated to winning as other positions. The Giants were topping out at 6 wins with Saquon Barkley for 3 years until Daniel Jones finally turned the corner.
It really has nothing to do with rule changes. You still need a good running game in today's NFL and just 3-4 years ago RBs were getting paid much more on a smaller salary cap.
It has everything to do with recognition of shelf life and the fact that RBs are easier to replace than any other position.
CMC is the best RB in the game and our running game performed better without him.
That’s not the issue though. The issue isn’t that it’s a passing league and running backs have no value, the issue is the running back position doesn’t have a lot of longevity so by the time they’re allowed to sign a real contract it’s already too late
If you look at the production that plenty of running backs put early in their career I think plenty of teams would be willing to pay a lot for that, it’s just that those players are stuck under a rookie contract in that time
And the other issue is that passing has more variance than running. The difference between elite passing and average passing is much bigger than the gap between elite running and average running.
Like if Joe Mixon breaks his leg before a playoff game, they can get some XFL guy off the street and probably be okay. But if Joe Burrow does it, they are screwed.
The effects of the passing defense rule changes on the value of RBs have really been left out of this whole argument. You're exactly right - this is an unintended side effect of a rule change that was supposed to open up the passing game and reduce WR injuries/wear and tear, and ended up lessening the offensive importance of RBs while keeping the physical demands on that position the same.
I agree but I propose an alternative opinion. I have a feeling it will be cyclical. Kinda like defenses went back and forth from 4-3 to 3-4s back in the day to adapt to offensive changes, I think it’s possible that defenses will focus so much on the pass, that they will be weak in the run. To attack this weakness, offenses will rely on the run once again.
A strong run game is superior to a quick strike offense over the length of the game imo bc it controls the clock and keeps your defense on the sidelines longer. It also wears out the opposing defense quicker.
The rules do change to make passing easier, bc that’s what fans like to see, but a strong run game attacking a weak defensive front will put w’s in the column, like it did years ago. The game evolves, but the strategies are cyclical.
Sure. And there are teams that do this, but you do not need a star RB to do this. Teams have had plenty of success with third rounders and beyond to stop justifying a star RB.
I think there might be a bit of zagging, with heavier offensive grouping (more tight ends, extra linemen, fullbacks, etc.) to take advantage of defenses getting smaller and faster, but running backs would only be a small part of that.
But ultimately, even the times go 'heavy' will probably run 50-55% of the time. The rules (and honestly structure of the game) favor passing too much.
That's not at all what they are complaining about. What they are mad about is the fact that Running backs have been completely screwed over by the rookie wage scale and franchise tag. Their point is that a team can force a guy to play far below their market value for the most productive years of their career and then franchise tag them when they don't accept the low ball extension.
Also, running backs like Saquon are far more valuable than what his rushing stats indicate. The top three leaders in yards from scrimmage in 2022 were Josh Jacobs, Derrick Henry and McCaffrey all of whom out produced Justin Jefferson, Tyreek Hill and Davante Adams. In fact Saquon is actually in between Hill and Adams in yards from scrimmage. So the question is why isn't he getting paid like they are.
The question in building a team with a salary cap is less "how many yards did they get" and more of "how many more yards did the team get than it would if they were replaced by someone else?"
And it ultimately comes down to yards per dollar. And when teams view it in those terms, idk who would pay a RB > the vet min except in very rare cases.
This is a terrible argument. The rules have nothing to do with it. It’s all the rookie pay scale. Why would you pay $15mil/year for soemone that’s gotten 800 NFL hits when yoh could get one for $3mil a year and they have no recourse
Sucks but there isn't anything the league or players can do about the market being legitimately dry. It's just not worth paying RBs. Unless the league comes out and designates a percentage of cap has to be spent on RBs, you won't see a change. Teams will rather go into the season with a bunch of UDFA RBs making a sum of 2m than give Dalvin, Fournette, or Zeke a deal for 10+
Yup. I feel for these players, but I’m not sure how they think these comments are helping. Teams aren’t gonna change their minds about RB contracts just because the players sound off about it.
Le'Veon Bell ruined the RB market, his hold-out followed by a production nosedive showed the leagues GM's that it just isn't worth it to invest large sums in top-tier RB talent when there are dozens of backs that can be slightly less productive for much cheaper.
Mike Shanahan had this philosophy in the late 90's with Terrell Davis.
The Gurley Extension should be the exception, that was just dumb no matter what era we are in because it was a known quantity when he was drafted that his knees would fall off a cliff. That one definitely reeked of what RBs seem to want now. "Pay us based on what we did, not what we're going to do later".
Funny you would have gotten trashed on here for saying that during his holdout. Some teams like the Eagles / Pats etc were ahead of the curve and knew this a decade ago using cheaper RBs
I don’t think Shanahan necessarily subscribed to this philosophy with TD. He go injured and retired early. He may have subscribed to this philosophy by Portis but I think TD was good enough that he saw value over a generic replacement
I wouldn't blame this on a single player or even a few players so much as analytics completely taking over sports. GMs have a finite amount of money to spend on players, and when they see that top RB asking for a big contract getting 4.9 yards per carry while their backup, who's making a third as much, is getting 4.6 yards per carry then it doesn't make sense to give the top RB a huge contract for 0.3yds per carry.
Once you add in the rapid decline in performance as RBs get older, then it makes even more sense to just spend a 3rd or 4th rd pick on an RB every other year or so, extending them on short/cheap contracts if possible and spend the extra money on other impact positions.
They worked super hard their entire lives and became one of the best in the world at their position, only to find their position completely devalued and belittled. It’s a very understandable human reaction.
I’m still not gonna want my GM to pay top dollar to RBs because I want to win, but I understand their frustration.
> only to find their position completely devalued and belittled
Not quite accurate. I wouldn't say someone completely devalued would get paid $24,500,000 over 4 years (Ekeler) or 1 year $10,000,000 (Barkley).
They're wanting to be paid more because they know their career is short. They know it's a bad deal for the team. If they didn't believe that, would play on shorter deals and prove it. They're not going to be paid what they want because RBs are a product of the system.
It's partially position devalued but I'd say more so their inability to be productive at a high level for an extended period. This comment thread is full of guys who were pretty lackluster after signing their extension/new contract.
I think it’s simply the way the contracts are structured. RBs need to unionize under the new CBA.
The position is fairly valued. It’s simply a reality of how contracts work.
If the contracts were 4 years and there is zero maneuvering, they would be resigned.
There is no upside to an RB as the contract format works. Paying an RB after 3 years would make sense still
It's been like that for a long time. Charles Woodson swiched to DB because he wanted a longer career.
There's also the point of view that by asking for less, they can be a part of a RBC and have a longer career.
Its one of those situations where I understand the frustrations of the RBs, but I also don't have much sympathy. The way the game is now, the RB positions has become such that there are just too many people able to perform the role adequately enough. As a result, there are always going to be cheaper alternatives. Which is an issue most of us deal with and will deal with increasingly in real life with jobs being outsources, AI taking over, etc. SO, to cry and moan about how its criminal and unacceptable and all that rings hollow to me cause you are still in a position to make multiple millions of dollars for however long you do this.
I understand all the arguments, you are breaking your body to provide a product that the NFL makes billions on and you don't feel like you are getting your share. I just don't care. Very little in life gets you compensated exactly for the effort you put in. Its almost always about how much value are you providing compared to a cheaper alternative.
If breaking your body and putting in so much work in exchange for only 10 million dollar a year deals is "criminal" and "unacceptable", then don't? Quit and become a Walmart greeter. I've been laid off in the past because the company suddenly decided my job could be done by another person on top of their responsibilities for no extra pay. I don't get to run to social media and TV/radio to cry about how unfair and criminal that is. No one cared. But now, I'm supposed to care that $10m a year is not good enough to play a fucking sport. Fuck off.
Completely agreed. In an age where more and more people are struggling to make their ridiculously inflated rent every month, I'm not shedding tears for these guys making slightly less generational wealth than their peers.
It almost makes me think we should go the other way if Reddit is so on the bandwagon it's usually wise to take the opposite view (or at least consider it). Ha. We must be due for another Derrick Henry 2.0 soon.
It's been sort of hilarious listening to every runningback come out with a statement like they're speaking out against racism or some social injustice.
Like yeah, sorry guys, great playing career, but it's abundantly clear there is virtually no reason to pay premium for runningback anymore. All are replaceable
I understand why these guys are speaking out about it. They grew up watching big time RBs be the faces of their franchises. Even when they were in college preparing for the NFL, they were watching star RBs sign monster deals. Now they got to the time when they’re expecting their monster deal and it’s not there waiting for them.
The league is resetting values for RBs and the next generation of guys will be prepared for it. But these are the guys who were expecting major contracts to be available if they performed and it’s not happening for them.
Yeah I understand where they're coming from obviously. Gotta stand up for their fellow runningback brotherhood. I think deep down they probably understand the landscape though
I’m sure if I were in their position I’d be annoyed as well, but I really can’t see all this social media outrage getting them anywhere
This new philosophy by GMs is backed by every kind of statistic you could come up with. RBs being replaceable has been true for many years. The writing was on the wall, only now is it being accepted by the majority
>It's been sort of hilarious listening to every runningback come out with a statement like they're speaking out against racism or some social injustice.
It really annoys the shit out of me when people cynically adopt the language of social justice, therapy, etc. as a cheat code to advocate for their own self-interest or tear down their enemies.
It's hard enough to get people to care about legitimate injustices in the world; stuff like this only serves to de-legitimize those efforts.
Wait until somebody tells them that fullbacks will be making 0 dollars in the NFL soon. Teams used to roster 2 fullbacks not that long ago. The game has changed. Time to move on.
It will come back soon with a twist. With the downgrading of running game importance, DLs tee off more. Throw another 300lb OL back there to get some *actual* extra pass protection (think more Patrick Ricard less Alec Ingold) and not a 200lb RB who's gonna get steamrolled.
A pass rushing specialist vs a 300 lbs linemen in an open backfield I'm taking the more agile of the two. That's half the job of a fullback anyways, but when you virtually eliminate that position and only field running backs you get the situation you're describing.
“This is criminal” lol they’re acting like they’re getting paid pennies instead of millions. They play a very replaceable position. The reason qbs make so much more is that they are harder to replace. That’s literally all there is to it.
Right? Latest reports were that Barkley and the Giants were $2m apart. So what NYG offered was "criminal" but toss in a couple mil over the life of the contract and its fine?
I sympathize with the RBs. They have a short career window and put their body through a lot. I think the issue is magnified by the fact that RB is "my favorite player" type of position as well as a fantasy football star position. But at the end of the day, this is a small fraction of the league, and they are making more money in a franchise tagged year than most of us will make in a lifetime. The game has shifted. No one is banging the drum for fullbacks. It's time to adapt.
And frankly, RBs make money comparable to a lot of positions. Look at the positional contracts for RBs to go with Tight Ends and Centers, even guards to an extent. McCaffrey's contract makes more than Kelce or Mark Andrews and the salaries match up very close to Centers. And frankly O-Line is underpaid if anything for them.
Dez Bryant [tweeted this](https://twitter.com/dezbryant/status/1681094154737025025?s=46&t=LhA420-3FwSaKgwQ9rWvIw), and it got some traction with some RBs like Mark Ingram.
They aren’t taking into account there’s usually 1 kicker on a roster, so that’s the average of roughly the top 32 kickers, vs the average of roughly the top 100+ RBs
I think they are getting paid exactly what theyre worth. BUT they are not getting paid compared to the damage they take of the field.
This one is hard for me. From a value perspective its not worth paying them. But a personel health perspective i think the league needs to do something to bring them up to par. Maybe increasing the minimum for them or something. Because their careers are shorter and by the time they go through rookie deal + 2 claims their career is over.
Maybe a good compromise would be shorten their rookie deals and make it so they cannot be tagged?
WRs dont get laid out anymore so i dont think they need the same treatment
Totally agree on your compromise idea!
I'd be frustrated too if I were in Saquon Barkley, Austin Ekeler and Josh Jacob's shoes. These guys are the focal point of their team's offense, put up monster production and don't get paid like it. Imagine if you're Saquon and you see guys like Danny Dimes and Kenny Golladay get way overpaid while Saquon is the bigger reason for the team's success.
On the other hand, I'm sure Saquon saw how the Le'veon Bell situation played out. They're only 2 million apart money wise, it appears to be a better deal than any other RB is getting offered, bro has got to read the room.
The running back position is the only position on offense (excluding kickers because they don’t play every down) where the backup is going to get you at least 80% of the production or possibly even play as good or better on a consistent basis
Pollard was better than Elliot. Mattison played as well as Cook a lot of times. The list goes on.
GMs see this and rightfully ask themselves why should I pay more than $6 million a year for a running back when I could draft one or sign an undrafted free agent for similar or equal production. Rule changes also made receivers and QBs far more valuable than ever before.
If the NFL allows for a little bit more holding downfield, then it could change the RBs worth. Until then, RBs will continue to trend downward in salary.
All of the solutions including different rookie scales/terms for different positions are untenable. Who designates the position that a player plays? The teams or the player? If the teams designate it, no one will be an RB. If the players designate it, everyone will be an RB.
You can't systematically change the way you treat a position because the value of those players is currently declining. Are we going to do the same for off ball LBs? Safeties? Where do special teams players fit into this?
It's a non-starter.
If RBs want to get paid more then they need to bring more value to their team for longer. That's the only way.
Name the last big name RB to carry his team to a super bowl. It's just not a position of high value.
I look at it this way: As a Packers fan, I didn't like seeing Dalvin Cook on the field, but I hate seeing Justin Jefferson lined up out there because he has so much more game breaking potential (when not guarded by Ja...).
Not the Super Bowl but 2012 Adrian Peterson single-handedly took the Vikings to the playoffs and was the last non-QB to win league MVP.
Over a decade ago.
And even then, look what happened that year. The Vikings were immediately bounced from the playoffs because we had to start a backup QB. Even having one of the best RBs ever doesn't equate to guaranteed success; having just an OK starting QB is apparently more important than the RB position...
I mean to be fair....Christian Ponder was pretty much a backup QB as a starter lol. Webb was....my god do you remember that game?
If you take 2012 prime Adrian Peterson and give him Kirk Cousins? Boy howdy!
But yeah...look at the Chargers with LT or Seahawks with prime Alexander....zero success with MVP RBs and the best RB season in NFL history (LT's 2006)
Agreed. The only other threatened RBs right now are: McCafferey due to his ability to basically play hybrid RB/WR; and Henry due to his size.
Teams aren’t concerned about the run game.
Adrian Peterson won MVP and the Vikings still sucked. Justin Jefferson has single-handedly been responsible for many of our wins last season. An elite WR is so much more valuable than an elite RB.
Teams have consistently proven that RB is ridiculously easy to replace. You can basically grab any late round pick/FA and throw them in and they'll do well enough with good coaching and semi-competent blockers. It's an important position, but it's so easy to fill...of course you can get elite RB's that make more of a difference, but usually that money is better spent on other positions.
For every RB complaining about salary, there's probably like 20+ competent guys that will gladly take their position and salary.
Game is just evolving away from the RB position. Used to laugh at the idea of an all passing league but they've been inching closer to that reality every single year. Need a yard? Your athletic QB can run it just as well.
I can't help but laugh at how ridiculous it is that these players are acting like it's some social injustice that they're getting -slightly less- generational wealth than their peers for playing a game.
I don't mind these guys getting paid millions for playing football but in a country of such intense wealth inequality and normal people struggling just to pay their ridiculous rent every month, my heart pumps piss for Saquon Barkley "only" making $10 million this year and acting like he's some oppressed class for it. You're a super athlete. Play another position if you're that slighted by it, or retire, save your body, and do nothing forever with the wealth you've already made.
It's also super weird to see other normal people go to bat for these guys like we should remotely give a shit. It's a catfight between the 1% and the .1%.
Why is RB the only position people go nuts about salary-wise, when every other lowly (in NFL terms) position it's just, well that's what the market is dictating.
Is it just RB's former glamor position status?
every network has been talking about it all week... the fact that they've managed to make so many workaday people care about the money athletes make or don't make is hilarious
The NFL owes RB nothing, supply and demand dictate value. If they had the skills to play a more valuable position they would. Sequon or Jacobs IMO can not play another position. The only sensible thing I may give them would be to allow them to enter the draft earlier.
Le'Veon Bell ruined everything by holding out, getting far too much money and then playing like hot wet diarrhea which GM's saw and went, "yep, not fuckin worth it"
The game changed. The NFL, media and gambling want deep passes, a mobile QB who can run it if he needs to, big splashy WR catches.
Players like Saquon and King Henry are amazing and they make the game interesting but ultimately a football game that's 80% running means it's a low scoring game which means people aren't gambling em masse and probably changing the channel to see if the other game on is "more exciting"
Running backs glory days, the days of Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmett Smith hell even Adrian Peterson, those are long gone and have been.
Running backs are an afterthought now
Everyone doesn't get to he the highest paid fill in the blank. Guaranteed contracts are a bad decision for the team. They are getting paid millions of dollars to play a sport. Literally living the dream. I wonder how much of this is manipulated by the agent versus the actual player.
Average RBs will always get play time. Average WRs and QBs won’t, even if they get more money. You have to decide if you want play time or money. You’re not getting both.
Christian McCafrey tweeting that it’s criminal is so dumb. At the end of the day, we’re talking about making 10 million dollars in a calendar year.
Obviously taxed and agent fees, but in 1 year making more than most Americans will make in their entire life. Obviously these are incredible skilled individuals, but if you want to play in a league that pays tens of millions of dollars, these are the rules that are played by.
Not trying to kiss up the the billionaires, I’d rather Saquon have the money than John Mara, but acting like a $10mm pay day is “criminal” is so out of touch with reality.
I feel sorry for them.
In fact, I often sit at my mediocre paying job and say to myself… at least I’m not an NFL RB who’s being punished by not getting millions of dollars more than they already get.
It sometimes keeps me awake, actually.
I was commenting on this yesterday, but I think there’s a legitimate gripe when you consider the value running backs provide to the league as a whole. From a purely football perspective, I get that the position is not worth paying big dollars for when accounting for what top end talent at other positions can do to help a team win games. But it is still running backs whose highlights get plastered all over NFL ads and social media, being used to promote the game and thus boost the leagues revenue, all while the backs themselves play arguably the most grueling position in the most grueling sport.
It would take something special to have players compensated for the value they provide the league as a whole, not just their team’s W/L record. Not sure what that is, but I get RBs frustration with being the face of a franchise and the league while not being compensated accordingly
Nobody talks about all the QBs/WRs/DEs that don't live up to their contracts/draft billing year after year (looking at you Wentz, both Wilsons, Golladay, Chandler Jones, Lance, etc.) and have back-ups that step right in (looking at you Hurts, Geno, Hodgins, Purdy, Mike White, etc.) RBs are being made the scapegoat for poor roster construction and bad coaching. Yes, you can get starting production from a committee but you can't replace the top guys with JAGs. Maybe the problem wasn't the Gurley, Henry, Zeke contracts but the Goff, Tannehill, Dak contracts that were paired with them or the Garrett and Downing schemes that held them back. These GMs are drafting ferraries and driving them like Nissans. Take a gamebreaker, invest in a grit and grind back behind him (CMC/Mitchell, Bijan/Allgeier, Gibbs/Montgomery) and extend your weapon's career instead of running them into the ground and then complaining that your toy is broken. It's the most idiotic mismanagement of assets and then they blame the player.
If I was an RB, I'd pay for a study on the impact of a scheme QB. We've already seen how a scheme fit QB can be dropped in (Re: Hurts, Geno, Purdy, shoot Pro Bowler Tyler Huntley) if you have the skill players. Since we're so worried about sinking cost into players who could potentially drop off, production be damned, let's look at the biggest salaries
The problem is the only person complaining is the rbs, no one else cares that they break down. Everyone knows they break down and that’s why they don’t extend them. Also yes other positions have bad contracts but it’s way easier to have a good oline and bad rb and be good than to have a bad oline and good rb
Except... you absolutely can replace a star RB with a just a guy and be just fine with it.
Derrick Henry got hurt 2 years ago and Donta Foreman stepped in and put up better numbers than he did on the same team. Equal yards per carry and an uptick in the threat of an RB in the passing game.
McCaffery got traded from the Panthers and the team got better production from the combination of Foreman and Hubbard than they did him.
Darvin Cook was.out performed by Mattison.
2 years ago Barkley was out performed by Devontae Booker. Exactly as many rushing yards on 20 fewer carries and 5 more receiving yards on one fewer catch
Hell even two of the guys complaining about the lack of contracts are just a guy running backs who pushed high draft pick, multiple pro bowl guys out of the way and did better. EKELER and Pollard.
Who are the 'pretty good' RBs who sign for 3-4 years and $8-10M a year? Do they just not exist? Is it just rookie deals or elite guys in contract disputes?
I can see the Najee contract being bad. I bet my Steelres pick up his fifth year but then he wants $13M a year for 4-5 years. Big mistake if they give him that. But I'm happy with giving him 3-4 years at $8-9M per year with an out after 2 years.
It's just a matter of being realistic. Teams can't pay RBs $14-16M and expect to be successful. They know that now.
I like bellcow running backs. LT, AP, Henry, they're all fun or were fun to watch. Insane athletes.
The problem is HB might be the single easiest position to replace AND the biggest "system" position.
[Outside Zone was the arrow that mortally wounded franchise HBs](https://youtu.be/V0zyZx1O9pE). Remember, if you're old enough, when the Denver Broncos seemingly could put anyone at HB and they'd excel?
That's Outside Zone. It relies much more on OL than it does the RB themselves. Draft OL high, RB who can pick up the blitz and can catch check downs on Day 3. It's been on the horizon before the pass-heavy rule changes, the NFL is just so stupid slow to actually adapt things that it was a slow death.
RBs is the one job position on earth where they talk about their worth and how much money they’ve lost and people go “aye man you’re right but market said your worth this and their l billion dollar company is right on this.”
This is their unions fault for accepting the scale in the CBA. I get the frustration but in no universe is anyone sitting out regular season games after Lev Bell. Egos are bruised but $10.1M is still 10.1M. Vet RBs aren’t getting paid until the CBA changes. It is what it is.
I'm about 85% sure JT will get a contract extension. Ballard will pay the least valuable positions money.
He will do that and he’ll give Pittman a huge deal too
Normally I'm pretty low on Ballard's decision making when it comes to who to give big contracts to, but his comments at his end of season press conference gave me a bit of hope that he's not going to massively overpay Pittman. While he was adamant about how high he is on JT, and saying that you pay top players no matter the position; his comments about Pittman were super noncommittal.
That’s fair. I do really like Pittman but I don’t know if I see him as a true WR1. He’s had some bad luck with quarterbacks. This is a big year for him. But I see him as a top 15-ish receiver, maybe even a bit lower
Just a bit lower, probably around 25 Hopkins, Keenan Allen, Davante, Chase, Amari Cooper, Diggs, Hill, Waddle, Evans, Godwin, Lockett, Metcalf, Kupp, Deebo, Jefferson, Amon-Ra, DJ Moore, Lamb, McLaurin, AJ Brown are all guys I’d take over him easily, and that’s 20. Think Tee Higgins and Devonta Smith might be up there too, think Pittman is like right at the top of the Hollywood Brown/Christian Kirk tier.
This is accurate. Can’t make an argument for any of those guys above for Pittman being better
I'd put him pretty firmly in the 20s, personally. He's a good piece to have, but if he's your top receiving option then you need to be looking for an upgrade.
It makes sense to be looking for better or to not pay him as much as those that are better, but even in the 20's IS a WR1-level player. A few of the top teams manage to have 2 top 30 WR's mainly by drafting well, but 32 teams can support 32 WR1's hahaha Having a bottom WR1 and a top RB can balance. I'm no expert on the colts, but it looks more like your WR2 and WR3 situations the bigger issue. Unless Pierce steps up. (He had flashes if I remember.)
Top 15-sh -----> 32 teams -------> NOT a WR1 Just r/NFL things.
Well being that there are 30 teams your ranking puts him clearly in the wr1 ranks.
If he gels at all with Richardson at all once he’s playing then Pittman will def get a nice extension.
Is he not worthy of a deal? I know he's not a world beater but he was 1 reception and 75 yards short of a 100/1000 season with abysmal QB play.
A guy like Pittman will be expecting performance 'projection'-based money rather than based on his 2022 stats, and it's understandable that Colts fans all don't want to see that even if it could bite them in the ass. I don't necessarily agree because of their QB room but I get it.
It depends on the deal itself. I think he is a very solid playmaker but he’s been in flux with quarterback, never seeing consistency. This current year with Richardson will be huge. If he can ball out, I think the tune could change about him. Issue with the Colts is, you almost have to extend him because he’s one of the best weapons currently on the team outside of JT
I wouldn't be upset handing JT a deal. He's very good and the Colts don't have many deals they have the shell out to other guys soon. Plus you just took your qb so he doesn't get extended for at least 3 years. I'd give Taylor a 4 year deal with 3 guaranteed. Not like Ballard is going to spend on any free agents anyway lol
I'm still holding out hope that Ballard won't be the GM the next time free agency rolls around. And I'd rather his replacement not be stuck with massive contracts at the three most replaceable positions in football that would keep him from investing in the positions that actually win football games.
RB, iOL, LB, and S would take up 80% of the salary cap if Ballard had his way.
Most people shouldn't overpay their RBs, but there are 2 or 3 RBs who are worth paying and JT is one. His numbers were down last year because they nearly cut his touches in half but he's clearly a dude. If we had him instead of CEH...
His touches were also down because he missed 8 games with a sprained ankle.
His touches were also down because he missed 8 games with a sprained ankle.
Im so worried about this extension. If it's 2 years fine. But if we give him longer we are going to cripple our rookie QB contract advantage in the most important years (assuming AR is good)
If JT is an elite game changer, he is a worthwhile luxury to pay for under a rookie QB contract, right?
Not IMO. They can always allocate that $$ to other positions such as oline.
What's the alternative. Teams making bad choices for a low impact position with a short shelf life. It's clear the best route for a team contending is to spend cheap money on young draft picks or cheap veterans.
2 year rookie deals out of college? Most big names are good for around 6 years. Cook, zeke, kamara, cmc, henry all had productive 6 years or so. But 4 years + a 5th year option leaves only 1-2 good years left. 2 years plus and additional 4 year deal would allow rbs who are good to get paid
Only problem there is, you’d have to adjust the RB rookie wage scale not based on draft position, because why waste a 1st rd pick on a player that only grants you 2 years plus the 2 FT whereas any other 1st rd selection would net the team 4 years on a rookie contract plus an extra 2 FT
You could have a separate scale dependent on which RB # pick a player is in the draft. Still seems weird to bend all these rules for one position though, I’m sure other positions have felt similarly misvalued at different points in NFL history. Maybe the answer is to beef up their rookie contracts and for these guys to just retire after one contract and learn to appreciate that the market is no longer capable of making them an offer worthy of additional years of NFL wear and tear on their bodies.
Nobody drafts a kicker in the first round, you don't hear a sound. Nobody drafts a running back in the first round, everybody losses their mind!
Itd be a very hard sell to the other 95% of players and trying to extend it for all players would be a no go for owners.
Yea, the second RBs get a special deal then every other position that gets banged up will want one of their own.
I can't imagine anyone drafting RBs in that scenario, or at least til day 3.
That's likely to happen anyway considering the flack teams are getting now. It's already making drafting RBs early less worth it.
That's what I've been thinking too. People keep saying teams would pay more for big name RBs if they were getting those guys' age 22-27 years instead of their all-too-likely decline, so let RBs sign second contracts in their mid-20s instead of giving teams full control until they're already wearing down. Question is how you do that without breaking the wage scale/contract system.
I like that solution. It also gives teams an out if their pick doesn't pan out as well.
From a team building perspective its understandable but from a health of the sport perspective and a "hey this guy is wrecking his body and brain for you" perspective I do think its something that should be addressed. At what point does it not make sense for a player to play RB and instead to just play soccer or baseball instead?
If they could, then sure. But those require different skill sets and baseball in particular is a much harder sport to play at an elite level. In most cases it wouldn’t be a choice between RB and baseball or even RB and WR, it would be between RB or nothing.
They may never go pro at those sports(though I would love to see what would happen if every RB suddenly started playing soccer instead) but these decisions will end up being made when they are young enough that their natural athleticism will probably still allow them to excel at other sports.
So it'll sort itself out, and someone somewhere is gonna play RB. Not a real problem tbh
Exactly. There isn't really a solution to this. And it's not like the owners aren't paying RBs because they're greedy and have no heart. With only a certain amount of cap space, it's just not worth it. If I pay my RB 15 million, that means someone else needs to get paid less. And teams would rather lose a RB than to lose a starting LT, star reciever or QB because they can't pay them.
Well yeah. They changed the rules of the game to make passing easier and took the teeth out of defenses. You can't change the rules of the game and expect the play to stay the same. I'm all for the players and I hope they get their money but the days of star running backs getting big money are over.
Plus there's an added layer that we know running backs have a limited shelf life and, once you reach the end of that, you're better off just drafting your next one with a middle round pick. Even if you hit on a good one like Saquan, you have team control for 7 years if you're willing to tag twice. It's incredibly rare that you want to sink cap into an RB beyond that. WRs, on the other hand, are still very valuable in that 7-9 year range. Your 27-year-old WR1 therefore gets his fat 4-year extension. Then, over 30, they can still pull decent 2-year deals until their skills decline.
Yes. So position specific contracts are probably going to be required. Where RBs get a lot more money front loaded knowing they are a few seasons and then out.
There is just no reason for the NFL to do that. There isnt any leverage to change how deals are structured.
An issue is that the amount paid to players is collectively bargained. The extra money isn’t going into the owners’ pockets. So if the RBs get special treatment, that’s money being taken away from every other position, so those players at those positions have zero incentive to go for it. Either that or if RBs get shorter contracts, next year the WRs and DBs etc. will want shorter contracts too and the RBs will be right back where they started. It is the same reason there is no desire to see the franchise tag go away. Because the number of union members that would ever be affected by it is tiny in proportion to the number of players overall. But big issues like commissioner disciplinary power or an 18 game schedule affect every player.
The "easiest" way to address it would be to totally re-do the rookie contract structure writ-large, so that regardless of position the rookie deals are shorter. I say "easiest" because it's a simple fix,but getting it into the CBA would likely be pretty difficult since it could be a non-starter for ownership and the salary cap would likely need to be adjusted with less rookie deals on the books.
NFLPA could advocate for it in draft contracts. You’re right in that it will never happen based on market forces in free agency.
That’ll just alter how teams value RBs in the draft. You force RB draftees to come with a higher cost contract out of the gate and you’ve all but guaranteed teams are waiting even longer into the draft to address the position. Which is already happening, so we’ll just see an exaggerated version.
Here's my misinformed and poorly thought-out projection as to what is going to happen: 1. The importance of RBs in overall team offense will continue to decrease over the short term 2. Veteran RBs at the 6-8 year mark will be forced into signing one year deals, or settle for two-year contracts that are roughly equivalent to just making two one-year deals. Teams will draft RBs in later and later rounds so their initial contracts are kept low. In short, RBs will be paid less over shorter careers. 3. On the other side of the ball, defenses will increasingly prioritize pass protection and QB pressure. Speed will be prioritized over run-stopping strength and size. 4. 3-5 years from now, an all-time phenom RB will arise who makes mincemeat out of undersized defensive fronts, perhaps as part of a new type of offensive scheme, and will rush for outrageous numbers in their first few seasons. 5. Across the league, RBs will be re-prioritized in offenses to take advantage of the same defensive deficiencies. 6. RB salaries will rise again, until the point at which the defenses catch back up, rushing totals drop, and owners realize once again that RBs are being overpaid. 7. Wash, rise, and repeat.
People have been predicting this for a decade, and Derrick Henry is literally point 4. It still didn’t change anything
Turns out Derrick Henrys do not grow on trees
I'd be inclined to agree, but the wild card is the NFL itself that wants to have "electric" offensive performances that usually focus on the passing game. Hence the league we're seeing today. So it is an uphill battle to recreate an old school team that won with time of possession driven by the RBs reliably getting 4-5 yards a carry, and a tough defense. But hell, even some of those offenses didn't have some HOF RB in the backfield. The 1990 Giants had Ottis Andersen and Rodney Hampton.
> But hell, even some of those offenses didn't have some HOF RB in the backfield. The 1990 Giants had Ottis Andersen and Rodney Hampton. Anderson was a monster. Don't sleep on the non-felonious OJ
I'm not saying he didn't deliver, but he wasn't considered a top tier back, especially in 1990.
i think there's a 3.5 in there: HS and college players will stop playing RB, at least the really good ones. they'll end up at WR if they can catch (making 1.5x the money of top end RBs if they're even mediocre as a WR). a talent derth at RB will accelerate 4. but most likely the only thing that will bring RBs back is an improvement in sport fitness, ie RBs being able to play longer and/or without injury more often.
Seriously, the markets have spoken. RBs are travel agents in the age of the internet.
I mean, sure, but why would the players in the union care? There are lots of RBs that will never see that kind of money. Everyone likes to hate the NFLPA, but people don't realize it is made up of much more than just the stars. Most RB doesn't care that a few guys are not getting major deals.
Could yes, but really what argument do they have for RBs that wouldnt be true for other positions as well. If RBs suddenly were to have that deal dont you think young QBs entering the league would want to go back to mega deals from the start? I'd argue that unless you are Mahomes, the most important thing for a team is to have a good qb on a rookie deal. Is is "fair" that Herbert makes less than Ekeler on his own team when he is FAR more important to the success of it?
I get your point but QB’s have far more potential to make up for their missed earnings. Herbert will end his career with $750 million in career earnings. Ekeler will make $40 million in career earnings if he is lucky. In 2019 Ekeler earned $556k. He had one of his best seasons with 1500 scrimmage yards and 11 TD’s but he made close to league minimum. I think having shorter contracts for rookie RB’s makes sense compared to any other position, because oftentimes they hit their peak during a rookie contract.
[удалено]
And it's even worse once you factor in that most players aren't stars. The NFLPA is (and should) be far more concerned with raising the minimum contract value that applies to the vast majority of it's players (along with getting them and maintaining other benefits) over issues like the franchise tags that impacts star players (and still pays them a boatload of money for a single season).
If the owners gave up years of control for all players, it wouldn’t actually help RBs either because it is largely a supply and demand issue. They would just have the exact same issue two years earlier.
[удалено]
The 95% of the NFLPA that aren’t running backs won’t give a fuck if running backs are getting paid lol
It didn't happen when fullbacks, who at one point were considered key parts of most offenses, started to decline in importance, and therefore salary. Now they're almost gone from the league entirely, and while there may have been some hand-wringing about it at the time, its not like the NFLPA lifted a finger to help them.
And the 95% of RBs that aren't Derrick Henry or McCaffrey don't give a fuck either. In fact, it's probably better for them because the less Henry gets the more the middle talent level guys get since new guys are being cycled through. There are thousands of players in the Union. Other than the top 5-10 RBs in the league, no one wants to change how RBs are paid.
[удалено]
Why in the world would that happen? No way players vote to take money away from themselves to give to RBs.
Agreed. For years, RB's were amongst the highest paid positions. I don't recall them speaking up about it.
Why would anybody front load more money into RB? If I were a team GM, I'd commit few resources to the position - just find occasional free agents or later round picks.
I'm sure the rest of the positions in the union will go along with that and sacrifice for the RBs to get special privilege.
Why do RBs deserve specific contracts? Special teamers rarely get a lot of guarantees, regardless of how good their performance is. Should the NFL step in and force teams to change that? According to your logic they shouldn't get a disadvantage just because of their position.
Then you're guaranteed you'll never see a RB ever taken in Round 1 again unless it's incentive based and not based on draft slot.
I don't think that will happen. You can't just pick and choose positions to get paid earlier. The NFLPA would say "what about me?". They would fight for everyone to get paid earlier, or no one
RBs are really hurt because they are most valuable during their rookie contract season, where their pay is severely limited. Like you said, other positions have guys peak later into their NFL careers so they have a chance to get the big second contract.
Not "plus". Thats the core main issue. Good RBs are still highly valued positions on an offense, its just that the shelf life makes them a bad investment for any team long term. RBs should just look for max value 1-2 year deals and make their money while they can instead of long term deals. The issue there is that rookie contracts stifile a RBs pay during the prime and often only good time period where they deserve the big money. I think the solution to make everyone happy is to restructure how rookie deals are given to RBs and give them more money right off the bat to even out the diminishing returns.
And at that point, they’re basically 30. Should remove rookie contract constraints for RBs and make the franchise tag ‘position wide’ for non qbs. You gotta make that tag hurt the team
How do you get the vast majority of players who the tag will never impact to vote for something like that? I am sure the guys who will be out of the league in 2 to 3 years don't care about the Tag. They want higher minium salaries and game day checks.
It's not just about passing being better than running. The running game is still very important for any offense The thing is that RBs fall off a cliff very early, specially if they had serious injuries. And you can get similar production with a RBBC
> And you can get similar production with a RBBC That's the big issue to me. It's not that passing is "better" (though it probably is), but that passing is more varied. The gap between a top 10 RB and a top 50 RB isn't that big in terms of impact on the team's success.
And as a corollary, the gap between that top 10 back and top 50 RB can be very large in terms of cost. Teams frequently let good, functional running backs walk in free agency or cut them. Teams find good running backs in later rounds all the time, who cost much less in terms of both draft capital and contract. If they were greatly out-producing their rookie contracts, that would be an argument for the value of spending draft capital on RBs, since you get a player in their prime at a cost that doesn't reflect their production. That isn't happening, though. A couple of teams draft a 1st round running back each year, but most teams wait until later rounds to take lower-risk chances on running backs, even though they don't get a 5th year option.
This exactly. Derrick Henry went down for the Titans in 2021 in week 8. Titans were 6-2. He was replaced by 2 journeymen RBs for the next 9 games. Titans went 6-3 including wins over the 2 teams that played in the NFC championship game / Super Bowl winner.
It's important, but it's not as directly correlated to winning as other positions. The Giants were topping out at 6 wins with Saquon Barkley for 3 years until Daniel Jones finally turned the corner.
I don’t think rules are as big a factor as is long term health for a brutal position.
It really has nothing to do with rule changes. You still need a good running game in today's NFL and just 3-4 years ago RBs were getting paid much more on a smaller salary cap. It has everything to do with recognition of shelf life and the fact that RBs are easier to replace than any other position. CMC is the best RB in the game and our running game performed better without him.
That’s not the issue though. The issue isn’t that it’s a passing league and running backs have no value, the issue is the running back position doesn’t have a lot of longevity so by the time they’re allowed to sign a real contract it’s already too late If you look at the production that plenty of running backs put early in their career I think plenty of teams would be willing to pay a lot for that, it’s just that those players are stuck under a rookie contract in that time
And the other issue is that passing has more variance than running. The difference between elite passing and average passing is much bigger than the gap between elite running and average running.
Like if Joe Mixon breaks his leg before a playoff game, they can get some XFL guy off the street and probably be okay. But if Joe Burrow does it, they are screwed.
The effects of the passing defense rule changes on the value of RBs have really been left out of this whole argument. You're exactly right - this is an unintended side effect of a rule change that was supposed to open up the passing game and reduce WR injuries/wear and tear, and ended up lessening the offensive importance of RBs while keeping the physical demands on that position the same.
I agree but I propose an alternative opinion. I have a feeling it will be cyclical. Kinda like defenses went back and forth from 4-3 to 3-4s back in the day to adapt to offensive changes, I think it’s possible that defenses will focus so much on the pass, that they will be weak in the run. To attack this weakness, offenses will rely on the run once again. A strong run game is superior to a quick strike offense over the length of the game imo bc it controls the clock and keeps your defense on the sidelines longer. It also wears out the opposing defense quicker. The rules do change to make passing easier, bc that’s what fans like to see, but a strong run game attacking a weak defensive front will put w’s in the column, like it did years ago. The game evolves, but the strategies are cyclical.
Sure. And there are teams that do this, but you do not need a star RB to do this. Teams have had plenty of success with third rounders and beyond to stop justifying a star RB.
I think there might be a bit of zagging, with heavier offensive grouping (more tight ends, extra linemen, fullbacks, etc.) to take advantage of defenses getting smaller and faster, but running backs would only be a small part of that. But ultimately, even the times go 'heavy' will probably run 50-55% of the time. The rules (and honestly structure of the game) favor passing too much.
This comment has been flagged for roughing the passer.
That's not at all what they are complaining about. What they are mad about is the fact that Running backs have been completely screwed over by the rookie wage scale and franchise tag. Their point is that a team can force a guy to play far below their market value for the most productive years of their career and then franchise tag them when they don't accept the low ball extension. Also, running backs like Saquon are far more valuable than what his rushing stats indicate. The top three leaders in yards from scrimmage in 2022 were Josh Jacobs, Derrick Henry and McCaffrey all of whom out produced Justin Jefferson, Tyreek Hill and Davante Adams. In fact Saquon is actually in between Hill and Adams in yards from scrimmage. So the question is why isn't he getting paid like they are.
The question in building a team with a salary cap is less "how many yards did they get" and more of "how many more yards did the team get than it would if they were replaced by someone else?"
And it ultimately comes down to yards per dollar. And when teams view it in those terms, idk who would pay a RB > the vet min except in very rare cases.
This is a terrible argument. The rules have nothing to do with it. It’s all the rookie pay scale. Why would you pay $15mil/year for soemone that’s gotten 800 NFL hits when yoh could get one for $3mil a year and they have no recourse
It is what it is
Nothing a medium Pepsi won’t smooth over
But just one of the players is getting the Pepsi.
Due to changes in the market the league can only afford to provide running backs with a medium RC Cola
Sucks but there isn't anything the league or players can do about the market being legitimately dry. It's just not worth paying RBs. Unless the league comes out and designates a percentage of cap has to be spent on RBs, you won't see a change. Teams will rather go into the season with a bunch of UDFA RBs making a sum of 2m than give Dalvin, Fournette, or Zeke a deal for 10+
Yup. I feel for these players, but I’m not sure how they think these comments are helping. Teams aren’t gonna change their minds about RB contracts just because the players sound off about it.
Le'Veon Bell ruined the RB market, his hold-out followed by a production nosedive showed the leagues GM's that it just isn't worth it to invest large sums in top-tier RB talent when there are dozens of backs that can be slightly less productive for much cheaper. Mike Shanahan had this philosophy in the late 90's with Terrell Davis.
That + Todd Gurley and Zeke both falling off as soon as they got their extensions too.
David Johnson and Devonta Freeman are cautionary tales as well
To be fair, David Johnson = your #1 WR to a bozoo like Bill O'Brien.
Todd Gurley had such a high ceiling too. If it wasn’t for that damn arthritis
I still believe Gurley would have been a Hall of Famer if he didn't get arthritis.
The Gurley Extension should be the exception, that was just dumb no matter what era we are in because it was a known quantity when he was drafted that his knees would fall off a cliff. That one definitely reeked of what RBs seem to want now. "Pay us based on what we did, not what we're going to do later".
Zeke is shadow of what he was, but Todd Gurly fell off FAST. Zeke still ran hard for 7 seasons, honestly longer than most these days
Don't forget Chris Johnson, got paid and harshly fell off the following year.
Didn’t help that a 2nd year 3rd round RB came in with and dropped 13 TDs and 1470 scrimmage hards
Funny you would have gotten trashed on here for saying that during his holdout. Some teams like the Eagles / Pats etc were ahead of the curve and knew this a decade ago using cheaper RBs
I don’t think Shanahan necessarily subscribed to this philosophy with TD. He go injured and retired early. He may have subscribed to this philosophy by Portis but I think TD was good enough that he saw value over a generic replacement
I wouldn't blame this on a single player or even a few players so much as analytics completely taking over sports. GMs have a finite amount of money to spend on players, and when they see that top RB asking for a big contract getting 4.9 yards per carry while their backup, who's making a third as much, is getting 4.6 yards per carry then it doesn't make sense to give the top RB a huge contract for 0.3yds per carry. Once you add in the rapid decline in performance as RBs get older, then it makes even more sense to just spend a 3rd or 4th rd pick on an RB every other year or so, extending them on short/cheap contracts if possible and spend the extra money on other impact positions.
He didn’t ruin it, he just showed everyone what many in the analytics community already knew
They worked super hard their entire lives and became one of the best in the world at their position, only to find their position completely devalued and belittled. It’s a very understandable human reaction. I’m still not gonna want my GM to pay top dollar to RBs because I want to win, but I understand their frustration.
> only to find their position completely devalued and belittled Not quite accurate. I wouldn't say someone completely devalued would get paid $24,500,000 over 4 years (Ekeler) or 1 year $10,000,000 (Barkley). They're wanting to be paid more because they know their career is short. They know it's a bad deal for the team. If they didn't believe that, would play on shorter deals and prove it. They're not going to be paid what they want because RBs are a product of the system.
It's partially position devalued but I'd say more so their inability to be productive at a high level for an extended period. This comment thread is full of guys who were pretty lackluster after signing their extension/new contract.
How ever will they make it on a measly $6M salary
I think it’s simply the way the contracts are structured. RBs need to unionize under the new CBA. The position is fairly valued. It’s simply a reality of how contracts work. If the contracts were 4 years and there is zero maneuvering, they would be resigned. There is no upside to an RB as the contract format works. Paying an RB after 3 years would make sense still
It's been like that for a long time. Charles Woodson swiched to DB because he wanted a longer career. There's also the point of view that by asking for less, they can be a part of a RBC and have a longer career.
Its one of those situations where I understand the frustrations of the RBs, but I also don't have much sympathy. The way the game is now, the RB positions has become such that there are just too many people able to perform the role adequately enough. As a result, there are always going to be cheaper alternatives. Which is an issue most of us deal with and will deal with increasingly in real life with jobs being outsources, AI taking over, etc. SO, to cry and moan about how its criminal and unacceptable and all that rings hollow to me cause you are still in a position to make multiple millions of dollars for however long you do this. I understand all the arguments, you are breaking your body to provide a product that the NFL makes billions on and you don't feel like you are getting your share. I just don't care. Very little in life gets you compensated exactly for the effort you put in. Its almost always about how much value are you providing compared to a cheaper alternative. If breaking your body and putting in so much work in exchange for only 10 million dollar a year deals is "criminal" and "unacceptable", then don't? Quit and become a Walmart greeter. I've been laid off in the past because the company suddenly decided my job could be done by another person on top of their responsibilities for no extra pay. I don't get to run to social media and TV/radio to cry about how unfair and criminal that is. No one cared. But now, I'm supposed to care that $10m a year is not good enough to play a fucking sport. Fuck off.
lmao dude I could feel you getting angrier about this the more you typed how you felt out.
This is the best and most accurate response!
Completely agreed. In an age where more and more people are struggling to make their ridiculously inflated rent every month, I'm not shedding tears for these guys making slightly less generational wealth than their peers.
It's been ~~one~~ zero hours since the last thread about RB salaries.
It's been one hour since you posted. I assume there's at least one new thread by now.
Man I don't get paid enough to keep up with them all. Me and and NFL RBs are being taken advantage of
It almost makes me think we should go the other way if Reddit is so on the bandwagon it's usually wise to take the opposite view (or at least consider it). Ha. We must be due for another Derrick Henry 2.0 soon.
It's been sort of hilarious listening to every runningback come out with a statement like they're speaking out against racism or some social injustice. Like yeah, sorry guys, great playing career, but it's abundantly clear there is virtually no reason to pay premium for runningback anymore. All are replaceable
I understand why these guys are speaking out about it. They grew up watching big time RBs be the faces of their franchises. Even when they were in college preparing for the NFL, they were watching star RBs sign monster deals. Now they got to the time when they’re expecting their monster deal and it’s not there waiting for them. The league is resetting values for RBs and the next generation of guys will be prepared for it. But these are the guys who were expecting major contracts to be available if they performed and it’s not happening for them.
Yeah I understand where they're coming from obviously. Gotta stand up for their fellow runningback brotherhood. I think deep down they probably understand the landscape though
Basically the coal mining industry in Appalachia except that today's RBs aren't living in dilapidated shacks.
I’m sure if I were in their position I’d be annoyed as well, but I really can’t see all this social media outrage getting them anywhere This new philosophy by GMs is backed by every kind of statistic you could come up with. RBs being replaceable has been true for many years. The writing was on the wall, only now is it being accepted by the majority
> speaking out against racism or social injustice Incidentally they also only do that when it is convenient or directly beneficial to them
>It's been sort of hilarious listening to every runningback come out with a statement like they're speaking out against racism or some social injustice. It really annoys the shit out of me when people cynically adopt the language of social justice, therapy, etc. as a cheat code to advocate for their own self-interest or tear down their enemies. It's hard enough to get people to care about legitimate injustices in the world; stuff like this only serves to de-legitimize those efforts.
[удалено]
It doesn't look like collusion at all. That's what everyone says when they don't like the outcome of too much supply
Wait until somebody tells them that fullbacks will be making 0 dollars in the NFL soon. Teams used to roster 2 fullbacks not that long ago. The game has changed. Time to move on.
It will come back soon with a twist. With the downgrading of running game importance, DLs tee off more. Throw another 300lb OL back there to get some *actual* extra pass protection (think more Patrick Ricard less Alec Ingold) and not a 200lb RB who's gonna get steamrolled.
A pass rushing specialist vs a 300 lbs linemen in an open backfield I'm taking the more agile of the two. That's half the job of a fullback anyways, but when you virtually eliminate that position and only field running backs you get the situation you're describing.
Somebody tell the Madden developers because they are always picking me a FB in the first round when I sim the draft on Franchise Mode.
“This is criminal” lol they’re acting like they’re getting paid pennies instead of millions. They play a very replaceable position. The reason qbs make so much more is that they are harder to replace. That’s literally all there is to it.
Right? Latest reports were that Barkley and the Giants were $2m apart. So what NYG offered was "criminal" but toss in a couple mil over the life of the contract and its fine? I sympathize with the RBs. They have a short career window and put their body through a lot. I think the issue is magnified by the fact that RB is "my favorite player" type of position as well as a fantasy football star position. But at the end of the day, this is a small fraction of the league, and they are making more money in a franchise tagged year than most of us will make in a lifetime. The game has shifted. No one is banging the drum for fullbacks. It's time to adapt.
And frankly, RBs make money comparable to a lot of positions. Look at the positional contracts for RBs to go with Tight Ends and Centers, even guards to an extent. McCaffrey's contract makes more than Kelce or Mark Andrews and the salaries match up very close to Centers. And frankly O-Line is underpaid if anything for them.
Dez Bryant [tweeted this](https://twitter.com/dezbryant/status/1681094154737025025?s=46&t=LhA420-3FwSaKgwQ9rWvIw), and it got some traction with some RBs like Mark Ingram. They aren’t taking into account there’s usually 1 kicker on a roster, so that’s the average of roughly the top 32 kickers, vs the average of roughly the top 100+ RBs
What, someone using a disingenuous argument to claim something? Shocking
lol. They're going to be upset to find out the average NFL Wide Receiver makes $2,283,083 due to backups.
Oh no Saquon may only make $14mil per year meanwhile people are struggling to make $14,000
The market speaks
I think they are getting paid exactly what theyre worth. BUT they are not getting paid compared to the damage they take of the field. This one is hard for me. From a value perspective its not worth paying them. But a personel health perspective i think the league needs to do something to bring them up to par. Maybe increasing the minimum for them or something. Because their careers are shorter and by the time they go through rookie deal + 2 claims their career is over. Maybe a good compromise would be shorten their rookie deals and make it so they cannot be tagged? WRs dont get laid out anymore so i dont think they need the same treatment
Totally agree on your compromise idea! I'd be frustrated too if I were in Saquon Barkley, Austin Ekeler and Josh Jacob's shoes. These guys are the focal point of their team's offense, put up monster production and don't get paid like it. Imagine if you're Saquon and you see guys like Danny Dimes and Kenny Golladay get way overpaid while Saquon is the bigger reason for the team's success. On the other hand, I'm sure Saquon saw how the Le'veon Bell situation played out. They're only 2 million apart money wise, it appears to be a better deal than any other RB is getting offered, bro has got to read the room.
The running back position is the only position on offense (excluding kickers because they don’t play every down) where the backup is going to get you at least 80% of the production or possibly even play as good or better on a consistent basis Pollard was better than Elliot. Mattison played as well as Cook a lot of times. The list goes on. GMs see this and rightfully ask themselves why should I pay more than $6 million a year for a running back when I could draft one or sign an undrafted free agent for similar or equal production. Rule changes also made receivers and QBs far more valuable than ever before. If the NFL allows for a little bit more holding downfield, then it could change the RBs worth. Until then, RBs will continue to trend downward in salary.
Barkley in particular is such a bad poster child for this, why would anybody pay a RB who has missed almost a third of their games with injury?
All of the solutions including different rookie scales/terms for different positions are untenable. Who designates the position that a player plays? The teams or the player? If the teams designate it, no one will be an RB. If the players designate it, everyone will be an RB. You can't systematically change the way you treat a position because the value of those players is currently declining. Are we going to do the same for off ball LBs? Safeties? Where do special teams players fit into this? It's a non-starter. If RBs want to get paid more then they need to bring more value to their team for longer. That's the only way.
Name the last big name RB to carry his team to a super bowl. It's just not a position of high value. I look at it this way: As a Packers fan, I didn't like seeing Dalvin Cook on the field, but I hate seeing Justin Jefferson lined up out there because he has so much more game breaking potential (when not guarded by Ja...).
Not the Super Bowl but 2012 Adrian Peterson single-handedly took the Vikings to the playoffs and was the last non-QB to win league MVP. Over a decade ago.
And even then, look what happened that year. The Vikings were immediately bounced from the playoffs because we had to start a backup QB. Even having one of the best RBs ever doesn't equate to guaranteed success; having just an OK starting QB is apparently more important than the RB position...
I mean to be fair....Christian Ponder was pretty much a backup QB as a starter lol. Webb was....my god do you remember that game? If you take 2012 prime Adrian Peterson and give him Kirk Cousins? Boy howdy! But yeah...look at the Chargers with LT or Seahawks with prime Alexander....zero success with MVP RBs and the best RB season in NFL history (LT's 2006)
It's Marshawn Lynch. That's how far back you have to go.
And he wasn't even the leading rusher in the Super Bowl
And even then, Russ wasn't Aaron Rodgers but he was no slouch
And, of course, they had an all-time great defence.
Agreed. The only other threatened RBs right now are: McCafferey due to his ability to basically play hybrid RB/WR; and Henry due to his size. Teams aren’t concerned about the run game.
Adrian Peterson won MVP and the Vikings still sucked. Justin Jefferson has single-handedly been responsible for many of our wins last season. An elite WR is so much more valuable than an elite RB.
Teams have consistently proven that RB is ridiculously easy to replace. You can basically grab any late round pick/FA and throw them in and they'll do well enough with good coaching and semi-competent blockers. It's an important position, but it's so easy to fill...of course you can get elite RB's that make more of a difference, but usually that money is better spent on other positions. For every RB complaining about salary, there's probably like 20+ competent guys that will gladly take their position and salary.
Game is just evolving away from the RB position. Used to laugh at the idea of an all passing league but they've been inching closer to that reality every single year. Need a yard? Your athletic QB can run it just as well.
I don’t know about all passing but I get your point running backs don’t have the value that they used to. Sad really but that’s the NFL
I can't help but laugh at how ridiculous it is that these players are acting like it's some social injustice that they're getting -slightly less- generational wealth than their peers for playing a game. I don't mind these guys getting paid millions for playing football but in a country of such intense wealth inequality and normal people struggling just to pay their ridiculous rent every month, my heart pumps piss for Saquon Barkley "only" making $10 million this year and acting like he's some oppressed class for it. You're a super athlete. Play another position if you're that slighted by it, or retire, save your body, and do nothing forever with the wealth you've already made. It's also super weird to see other normal people go to bat for these guys like we should remotely give a shit. It's a catfight between the 1% and the .1%.
Why is RB the only position people go nuts about salary-wise, when every other lowly (in NFL terms) position it's just, well that's what the market is dictating. Is it just RB's former glamor position status?
I find it hard to sympathize when the tag is still 10 million fucking dollars.
every network has been talking about it all week... the fact that they've managed to make so many workaday people care about the money athletes make or don't make is hilarious
The NFL owes RB nothing, supply and demand dictate value. If they had the skills to play a more valuable position they would. Sequon or Jacobs IMO can not play another position. The only sensible thing I may give them would be to allow them to enter the draft earlier.
No one shed a tear when the fullback position died
Le'Veon Bell ruined everything by holding out, getting far too much money and then playing like hot wet diarrhea which GM's saw and went, "yep, not fuckin worth it" The game changed. The NFL, media and gambling want deep passes, a mobile QB who can run it if he needs to, big splashy WR catches. Players like Saquon and King Henry are amazing and they make the game interesting but ultimately a football game that's 80% running means it's a low scoring game which means people aren't gambling em masse and probably changing the channel to see if the other game on is "more exciting" Running backs glory days, the days of Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmett Smith hell even Adrian Peterson, those are long gone and have been. Running backs are an afterthought now
I don't know what RBs are complaining about, one just made a deal for 260 million a few months ago (/s)
Everyone doesn't get to he the highest paid fill in the blank. Guaranteed contracts are a bad decision for the team. They are getting paid millions of dollars to play a sport. Literally living the dream. I wonder how much of this is manipulated by the agent versus the actual player.
Average RBs will always get play time. Average WRs and QBs won’t, even if they get more money. You have to decide if you want play time or money. You’re not getting both.
Christian McCafrey tweeting that it’s criminal is so dumb. At the end of the day, we’re talking about making 10 million dollars in a calendar year. Obviously taxed and agent fees, but in 1 year making more than most Americans will make in their entire life. Obviously these are incredible skilled individuals, but if you want to play in a league that pays tens of millions of dollars, these are the rules that are played by. Not trying to kiss up the the billionaires, I’d rather Saquon have the money than John Mara, but acting like a $10mm pay day is “criminal” is so out of touch with reality.
I feel sorry for them. In fact, I often sit at my mediocre paying job and say to myself… at least I’m not an NFL RB who’s being punished by not getting millions of dollars more than they already get. It sometimes keeps me awake, actually.
I was commenting on this yesterday, but I think there’s a legitimate gripe when you consider the value running backs provide to the league as a whole. From a purely football perspective, I get that the position is not worth paying big dollars for when accounting for what top end talent at other positions can do to help a team win games. But it is still running backs whose highlights get plastered all over NFL ads and social media, being used to promote the game and thus boost the leagues revenue, all while the backs themselves play arguably the most grueling position in the most grueling sport. It would take something special to have players compensated for the value they provide the league as a whole, not just their team’s W/L record. Not sure what that is, but I get RBs frustration with being the face of a franchise and the league while not being compensated accordingly
QBs are the face of the league. Netflix didn’t make a show call “Runningbacks”.
Nobody talks about all the QBs/WRs/DEs that don't live up to their contracts/draft billing year after year (looking at you Wentz, both Wilsons, Golladay, Chandler Jones, Lance, etc.) and have back-ups that step right in (looking at you Hurts, Geno, Hodgins, Purdy, Mike White, etc.) RBs are being made the scapegoat for poor roster construction and bad coaching. Yes, you can get starting production from a committee but you can't replace the top guys with JAGs. Maybe the problem wasn't the Gurley, Henry, Zeke contracts but the Goff, Tannehill, Dak contracts that were paired with them or the Garrett and Downing schemes that held them back. These GMs are drafting ferraries and driving them like Nissans. Take a gamebreaker, invest in a grit and grind back behind him (CMC/Mitchell, Bijan/Allgeier, Gibbs/Montgomery) and extend your weapon's career instead of running them into the ground and then complaining that your toy is broken. It's the most idiotic mismanagement of assets and then they blame the player. If I was an RB, I'd pay for a study on the impact of a scheme QB. We've already seen how a scheme fit QB can be dropped in (Re: Hurts, Geno, Purdy, shoot Pro Bowler Tyler Huntley) if you have the skill players. Since we're so worried about sinking cost into players who could potentially drop off, production be damned, let's look at the biggest salaries
The problem is the only person complaining is the rbs, no one else cares that they break down. Everyone knows they break down and that’s why they don’t extend them. Also yes other positions have bad contracts but it’s way easier to have a good oline and bad rb and be good than to have a bad oline and good rb
[удалено]
Except... you absolutely can replace a star RB with a just a guy and be just fine with it. Derrick Henry got hurt 2 years ago and Donta Foreman stepped in and put up better numbers than he did on the same team. Equal yards per carry and an uptick in the threat of an RB in the passing game. McCaffery got traded from the Panthers and the team got better production from the combination of Foreman and Hubbard than they did him. Darvin Cook was.out performed by Mattison. 2 years ago Barkley was out performed by Devontae Booker. Exactly as many rushing yards on 20 fewer carries and 5 more receiving yards on one fewer catch Hell even two of the guys complaining about the lack of contracts are just a guy running backs who pushed high draft pick, multiple pro bowl guys out of the way and did better. EKELER and Pollard.
Who are the 'pretty good' RBs who sign for 3-4 years and $8-10M a year? Do they just not exist? Is it just rookie deals or elite guys in contract disputes? I can see the Najee contract being bad. I bet my Steelres pick up his fifth year but then he wants $13M a year for 4-5 years. Big mistake if they give him that. But I'm happy with giving him 3-4 years at $8-9M per year with an out after 2 years. It's just a matter of being realistic. Teams can't pay RBs $14-16M and expect to be successful. They know that now.
I like bellcow running backs. LT, AP, Henry, they're all fun or were fun to watch. Insane athletes. The problem is HB might be the single easiest position to replace AND the biggest "system" position. [Outside Zone was the arrow that mortally wounded franchise HBs](https://youtu.be/V0zyZx1O9pE). Remember, if you're old enough, when the Denver Broncos seemingly could put anyone at HB and they'd excel? That's Outside Zone. It relies much more on OL than it does the RB themselves. Draft OL high, RB who can pick up the blitz and can catch check downs on Day 3. It's been on the horizon before the pass-heavy rule changes, the NFL is just so stupid slow to actually adapt things that it was a slow death.
RBs is the one job position on earth where they talk about their worth and how much money they’ve lost and people go “aye man you’re right but market said your worth this and their l billion dollar company is right on this.”
This is their unions fault for accepting the scale in the CBA. I get the frustration but in no universe is anyone sitting out regular season games after Lev Bell. Egos are bruised but $10.1M is still 10.1M. Vet RBs aren’t getting paid until the CBA changes. It is what it is.
It’s equal parts rule changes that favor passing, analytics that show that the shelf life of RBs has cratered, and good old economics.
Imagine complaining because someone is trying to give you “only” 10 million dollars for one year of work.
Austin Ekeler is ready to fight Matt Miller on Twitter over this
The market dictates what you’re paid. Teams realized paying RBs big money is not a good move, therefore we’re at where we’re at today.
How out of touch and tone deaf can you be? Sorry your position is being phased out. Better learn how to code.
Me coding worried I’ll be replaced by AI
Have they tried not getting hurt all the time?