Good WaPo article on devaluing of RB position

[djp14150]

5 hours ago, Troll Toll said:

Unfortunately, the NFL brought this on themselves. IMO RBs have been a huge ratings draw for decades. People want to see special athletes. RBs are the most electrifying part of football. A league without the truly special RBs and where all QBs succeed just does not sound like a long term winning formula. When all teams look the same, where is the intrigue?

 

 

In in terms of RB styles there aren’t many players who fits all roles. Now you have some that are big power backs then you have the scar backs who can catch the gall and run.

 

there also is a supply and demand issue.  A team can draft a RV, he okays then they rep,ace him with a rookie because if the cheaper cost.

 

any player with size and speed will go to WR, TEor LB or Safety. For the higher salaries and longer careers.

 

RBs fits more of the smaller under 5-9 players.  Given smaller body they will take a pounding and get injured.

 

abother nite..,data has showed after so many touches the player production at RB drops.

[Mr. WEO]

6 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Very smart kid. Even if you dismiss the monetary angle, the beatings running backs take is above and beyond any other position.

 

This is precisely why I had no problem with LeVeon Bell playing hardball.

 

It's exactly why he should not have played hard ball and instead taken the best long term deal any team is going to offer him.

[dave mcbride]

13 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

What's kind of ironic is that while Reggie Bush was bustISH, in some ways he changed the way the league views the position. He never lived up to the hype, but he was a pioneer of sorts.

Bush never lived up to the hype, but he WAS a good player for a while (8 yrs; 2006-13). He was an exceptionally good receiver, and in his three-year run with miami and detroit (2011-13), he had ~1000+ rushing yards each season and averaged 4.6 ypc cumulatively. In NO, he put up big receiving numbers and had 4 return tds in his first two seasons. Still, relative to the hype, he was a disappointment.

[stuvian]

Great tailbacks are part of what made the sport great. We are very close to defense free flag football already. The devaluing of the RB position will only hasten the demise of the sport. Offense sells the tickets but it's only meaningful against the prospect of being stopped by a good defense. 

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

Bush never lived up to the hype, but he WAS a good player for a while (8 yrs; 2006-13). He was an exceptionally good receiver, and in his three-year run with miami and detroit (2011-13), he had ~1000+ rushing yards each season and averaged 4.6 ypc cumulatively. In NO, he put up big receiving numbers and had 4 return tds in his first two seasons. Still, relative to the hype, he was a disappointment.

Right. He had a solid career, but based on expectations, you'd have to consider it a disappointment.

 

I do wonder if he came around 10-15 years too soon.

[MJS]

It's just supply and demand. There are a lot of running backs that can hit the hole and be effective. We are seeing that the success of a running back is largely due to the oline, play calling, and scheme.

 

We have seen it this year with NO dropoff whatsoever for Pittsburgh when John Connor stepped in for the best RB in the NFL.

 

There are a lot of talented rushers to go around, and only one spot on each team to plug them in to, with the surge of the passing game, and since RB's last far fewer seasons than all other positions, it makes complete sense that they don't get paid a lot.

[Rico]

20 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Plenty of pot-addled, xbox playing millenials into no defense games. Don't worry.

 

 

Don't forget the all-important fantasy points.

[BuffaloBill]

Saquon Barkley is a recent exception.  However the position is a shadow of what it used to mean to the NFL.