RB$ circling the wagons for fellow RBs

[Low Positive]

10 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

 Center is a weird position. They are probably the second smartest guys on the team but most centers are arguably the worst blockers (they have help on each side). I think while it is important to have a good, smart C, they are thought to be the most replaceable o line position. I think they are lowest drafted non kicking team position on average. 
 

but it’s an interesting point. 

Imagine if the Bills got McCaffery last year? He single handedly changed the 49ers season. Henry used to carry the Titans garbage offense. 

I have always thought that Centers are at a disadvantage. In the case of Morse, he calls the protection and has to handle the snap (usually a shotgun snap) before he gets to engage as a blocker. The guy he's blocking just gets to pin his ears back. 

[Don Otreply]

20 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

It’s not like the RB money is coming from cancer Research. I always hate this argument because it makes It seem like there is no such thing as context. Yes without any context these players have large salaries. But they do not exist in a vacuum.

 

Why should the owners run them down and not allow them to make as much money as they can in their narrow window of opportunity? There should be some adjustment to how RB’s are treated. Lowering their rookie deals by one year and eliminating the exclusive franchise tag for the position would be a decent start to allowing these guys to hit the market younger and avoid franchise tag traps.

The worlds gotta have ditch diggers too, these particular ditch diggers are really wealthy 

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

The guy behind Derrick Henry has averaged 6.3 ypc  over the past two seasons. And it turns out that Tony Pollard was better than Zeke the last couple of years. To paraphrase Charles DeGaulle, the graves are filled with indispensable running backs. Nick Chubb doesn't win his team games; the passing game does. Same with Ekeler. Barkley finally played on a winner when the team hired a good passing-game coach -- Daboll -- and the QB stepped up his game (plus the team was very lucky in close games). In Barkley's best season by far, the team went 5-11.  Chubb (much like Marshawn for the Bills) generally plays for losing teams -- the Browns have had losing seasons in four out of his five season there, and in their only winning season (2020), the QB actually had a good season (95.9 passer rating) that also turned out to be the best of his career. As for McCaffrey, he's a terrific receiver (not a third-option dump-off specialist), and hence he's paid accordingly. 

 

No position is easier to replace except maybe linebacker. Guards who can play decently are harder to replace. People really need wrap their heads around the concept of "value above replacement player" and the fact that there is an oversupply of decent running backs.  

In college? Also, YPC isn't an actionable insight on its own. It's a KPI, but It doesn't tell you who is providing more value, because it lacks any sort of context around the "why".

It's also not really useful to compare the season records of teams with elite RBs. One could make the argument that without those players, bad teams would have been far worse.

[dave mcbride]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

In college? Also, YPC isn't an actionable insight on its own. It's a KPI, but It doesn't tell you who is providing more value, because it lacks any sort of context around the "why".

It's also not really useful to compare the season records of teams with elite RBs. One could make the argument that without those players, bad teams would have been far worse.

No, I'm referring to the undrafted Dontrell Hilliard, who has a large enough sample size over the past two seasons (78 carries for 495 yards for TN) to suggest that maybe individual star RBs' value is overrated. I believe that if they had let Henry go instead of AJ Brown, their offense would have been better last season. He's more valuable than Henry. But you don't have to believe me -- virtually every team in the league would agree with that view. 

[BullBuchanan]

4 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

Projecting there Billbull, I have no envy, I’m retired and winter in the Bahamas and summer on the Connecticut shore, I’m just stating real income numbers, they aren’t hurting financially no matter how much you crow about it.

No, you're coming off super jealous, because there's no reason to put down someone that works for living unless you're jealous or you have a vested interest int hem earning less. The goal of working for a living isn't to "not hurt financially". It's to achieve the maximum income you can for the value you provide.

It's a weird take for a guy bragging about his luxury activities and living in expensive places.

[SoCal Deek]

11 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

The worlds gotta have ditch diggers too, these particular ditch diggers are really wealthy 

Send them over to the new stadium site. We desperately need a REALLY BIG ditch. 

[BullBuchanan]

5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

No, I'm referring to the undrafted Dontrell Hilliard, who has a large enough sample size over the past two seasons (78 carries for 495 yards for TN) to suggest that maybe individual star RBs' value is overrated. I believe that if they had let Henry go instead of AJ Brown, their offense would have been better last season. He's more valuable than Henry. But you don't have to believe me -- virtually every team in the league would agree with that view. 

His numbers aren't statistically significant. He put up those averages with carry totals of 22 and 56 respectively. He likely benefited from limited usage.

[Don Otreply]

4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

No, you're coming off super jealous, because there's no reason to put down someone that works for living unless you're jealous or you have a vested interest int hem earning less. The goal of working for a living isn't to "not hurt financially". It's to achieve the maximum income you can for the value you provide.

It's a weird take for a guy bragging about his luxury activities and living in expensive places.

I don’t have luxury activities, it was a life choice from years ago, I’m not remotely rich, just thinking outside the box to achieve my preferred life style, and you are still projecting and assuming there Bill, 😁👍

Edited July 18, 2023 by Don Otreply

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

but then you’ll also have teams with quarterbacks on rookie deals that will say OK we will take your 24 year old star running back and pay them to a new three-year deal.

No they won’t.  They’d put more money into their o-line as that’s way more predictive of running game success.  See Pittsburgh’s o-line with Najee Harris.

[dave mcbride]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

His numbers aren't statistically significant. He put up those averages with carry totals of 22 and 56 respectively. He likely benefited from limited usage.

You can believe what you want to believe. Every GM in the league except for the dumb ones (Dave Gettleman) think the VORP of RBs is lower than that of practically of every other position given the glut of people who can play the position competently. College football is jammed with guys good enough to play RB in the NFL; it's why so many undrafted/late round pick RBs turn out to be fine. Wide receiver, cornerback, and defensive end? Not so much.   

[BullBuchanan]

2 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

I don’t have luxury activities, it was a life choice from years ago, I’m not remotely rich, just thinking outside the box to achieve my preferred life style, and you are still projecting and assuming there Bill, 😁👍

Sailing is a luxury activity pretty much any definition and Connecticut is one of the most expensive states int he country. No projection at all on my side - just straight facts.

[BADOLBILZ]

14 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

The guy behind Derrick Henry has averaged 6.3 ypc  over the past two seasons. And it turns out that Tony Pollard was better than Zeke the last couple of years. To paraphrase Charles DeGaulle, the graves are filled with indispensable running backs. Nick Chubb doesn't win his team games; the passing game does. Same with Ekeler. Barkley finally played on a winner when the team hired a good passing-game coach -- Daboll -- and the QB stepped up his game (plus the team was very lucky in close games). In Barkley's best season by far, the team went 5-11.  Chubb (much like Marshawn for the Bills) generally plays for losing teams -- the Browns have had losing seasons in four out of his five season there, and in their only winning season (2020), the QB actually had a good season (95.9 passer rating) that also turned out to be the best of his career. As for McCaffrey, he's a terrific receiver (not a third-option dump-off specialist), and hence he's paid accordingly. 

 

No position is easier to replace except maybe linebacker. Guards who can play decently are harder to replace. People really need wrap their heads around the concept of "value above replacement player" and the fact that there is an oversupply of decent running backs.  I'm old enough to remember Mike Gillislee looking like a superstar for the Bills (calling out @BADOLBILZ!).

 

 

Yep Gillislee lead the NFL in yards per carry and was also somehow the best short yardage RB in the NFL in the same season.   

[GoBills808]

25 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

Yeah because making six figures and more annually is such a hardship

The idea that some people should settle for earning less because they make more than you is such a narrow way of looking at it

[FireChans]

44 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Because they are still workers and they are getting shafted by their employers based on their contributions. The money exists, it's just a matter of who gets it. It doesn't benefit you to ***** on a fellow worker just because they may earn more than you. It doesn't matter if they work at McDonalds or the NFL. It doesn't matter is they make $7/hr or $1M/hr. They should still get the maximum they can for the value they provide their employers, because it benefits all of us for that to happen.

The whole "they should quit crying about how much money they make" perspective is an incredibly toxic attitude that does nothing but set workers and society backwards.

The cap is a zero sum game.  There's only so much money to go around.

 

How can NFL fans sit here and know that QB's are the most important position and thus are paid the most % of the cap, while kickers/punters/backups are some of the least important and least paid, but not understand that every position (including RB) has to fall somewhere on that spectrum?

[billsfan89]

10 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

The worlds gotta have ditch diggers too, these particular ditch diggers are really wealthy 

 

It's a market that these RB's just are outright refusing to participate in because the rules that are already not in their favor (4-5 year rookie scale deals and the availability of two franchise tags) are even worse for their position group. They only have a small window of a few years to make money and these teams are just really hurting their ability to do so because they get 4-5 years on a rookie deal and then can franchise a player for 2 more seasons before they are then pushing 30 and are worth a lot less. If this position group wants to adjust the rules slightly because they are not allowed to maximize their value I say let them.

 

One less year on a rookie deal and only allowing them to receive a transition tag once they hit free agency makes sense. If a RB is drafted at age 21/22 and performs really well in their first three seasons they hit the market at age 24/25 where teams can feel like they can invest 3-4 year deals into them and get high-level production for most if not all of the deal. Only having a transition tag (basically a right to match) allows the RB's to actually go out and get their value based on what another team or their team is willing to pay them. It avoids a team locking them out of 1-2 of their prime years.

 

Right now if a RB at best gets drafted at age 21 and is on a 2nd round or later deal they can hit free agency at age 25 but then they can get tagged for two seasons. This means that even if they play out the tag for two seasons (which is very risky) they hit the market at age 27 with 6 seasons of wear and tear on their bodies and teams will be averse to offering a long-term deal because you are "pushing 30". And that's the "best case" scenario as players drafted at 22 or first-round picks facing a 5th-year option only hit free agency older. Just allow them to hit the market sooner and without the franchise tag. It still subjects them to the value they have on the market but it gives them a better window to get their contracts. 

 

I always hear how athletes and entertainers are "overpaid" but then people forget the other side of the equation that if the athletes and entertainers don't get the money it just goes to the owners/industry/shareholders. The way so many talk about athletes' salaries you would think that if athletes got paid a bit less the money would go to teachers. 

[FireChans]

3 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

This is true.........and part of the reason is that today's RB's(with the exception of Derrick Henry) can't hold a candle to the last crop of great RB's that arrived when guys like Adrian Pederson and Marshawn Lynch entered the league.    The wall got closer......falling from 30 all the way to 26......when the great talents started playing other positions.

 

So these guys are complaining about not being paid like a great RB of yesteryear...........but they aren't as good, either.   It's the only position where the quality of athletes has gotten worse.   They aren't the Thurman Thomas.......they are Kenny Davis.   They aren't Jerome Bettis they are Barry Foster.   

 

If the league wants to be equitable they should pay them more on their rookie deals.   They may not have the longevity of yesterdays starting RB's but they are doing a lot of work relative to what they get paid.   But if not,  then it's not a big deal.   There will always be some RB's because there are still plenty of muscle hamsters that can't hit a curveball and can't play other positions.

 

 

What's not talked about is that the NFL and NFLPA BOTH wanted the rookie pay scale in CBA negotiations 2011. The owners didn't want to negotiate with the Bradford's and Russell's of the world and pay them giant contracts before they stepped on the field, while the vets didn't want first rounders getting paid way more than them. 

 

The owners got the better of that negotiation as it turns out.

 

Now, almost all of the newly drafted players are cheap options compared to the vets, which means you'd rather have a rookie 2nd or 3rd rounder compared to a $4M 26 year old solid player in both the long and short-term. And while a first round RB may be a lesser use of resources, it's still far better than paying a 27 y/o RB big money.

 

Now the RB market is dead and has no chance of returning. It would have been better for the RB pay for the top flight college RB's like AP or Zeke or Gurley to get their money up front.

 

You also make a GREAT point about RB's. These dudes cannot play other positions. Tiny guys like Singletary and Ekeler aren't choosing to be RB's instead of DB's or WR's, they are choosing RB's over not being in the NFL. And they are still making pretty good money.

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

You can believe what you want to believe. Every GM in the league except for the dumb ones (Dave Gettleman) think the VORP of RBs is lower than that of practically of every other position given the glut of people who can play the position competently. College football is jammed with guys good enough to play RB in the NFL; it's why so many undrafted/late round pick RBs turn out to be fine. Wide receiver, cornerback, and defensive end? Not so much.   

These same GMs are giving Daniel Jones $40M a year. Forgive me if I don't defer 100% of judgement to their expertise.

I don't disagree that many drafted RBs turn out to be "fine". As far as how many Late/undrafted ones are key contributors on their teams? Not many

All of the top 8 backs from last year were 1st or 2nd round picks. There are a handful of guys in the next tier down from the 4th round and only Ekeler, mostert, wilson And Pacheco that were 6th rd or later in the top 25.

The most reliable way to get elite production from an RB is still to draft one in the top 50 picks.

[FireChans]

6 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

It's a market that these RB's just are outright refusing to participate in because the rules that are already not in their favor (4-5 year rookie scale deals and the availability of two franchise tags) are even worse for their position group. They only have a small window of a few years to make money and these teams are just really hurting their ability to do so because they get 4-5 years on a rookie deal and then can franchise a player for 2 more seasons before they are then pushing 30 and are worth a lot less. If this position group wants to adjust the rules slightly because they are not allowed to maximize their value I say let them.

 

One less year on a rookie deal and only allowing them to receive a transition tag once they hit free agency makes sense. If a RB is drafted at age 21/22 and performs really well in their first three seasons they hit the market at age 24/25 where teams can feel like they can invest 3-4 year deals into them and get high-level production for most if not all of the deal. Only having a transition tag (basically a right to match) allows the RB's to actually go out and get their value based on what another team or their team is willing to pay them. It avoids a team locking them out of 1-2 of their prime years.

 

Right now if a RB at best gets drafted at age 21 and is on a 2nd round or later deal they can hit free agency at age 25 but then they can get tagged for two seasons. This means that even if they play out the tag for two seasons (which is very risky) they hit the market at age 27 with 6 seasons of wear and tear on their bodies and teams will be averse to offering a long-term deal because you are "pushing 30". And that's the "best case" scenario as players drafted at 22 or first-round picks facing a 5th-year option only hit free agency older. Just allow them to hit the market sooner and without the franchise tag. It still subjects them to the value they have on the market but it gives them a better window to get their contracts. 

 

I always hear how athletes and entertainers are "overpaid" but then people forget the other side of the equation that if the athletes and entertainers don't get the money it just goes to the owners/industry/shareholders. The way so many talk about athletes' salaries you would think that if athletes got paid a bit less the money would go to teachers. 

Have you heard of the salary cap lmao.

[billieve420]

League is setup where you don't need a star RB. With the way the cap is setup I fully agree in the RB by committee approach. You draft RB and replace while avoiding paying out big money deal.

Edited July 18, 2023 by billieve420

[BullBuchanan]

12 minutes ago, FireChans said:

The cap is a zero sum game.  There's only so much money to go around.

 

How can NFL fans sit here and know that QB's are the most important position and thus are paid the most % of the cap, while kickers/punters/backups are some of the least important and least paid, but not understand that every position (including RB) has to fall somewhere on that spectrum?

Well, I definitely understand that. It doesn't have to mean that teams are spending money appropriately though. The overvaluing of mediocre DL being an example.