AP Article featuring Thurman Thomas talking about devalued RB position - interesting tidbit on Cook

[Big Turk]

AP interviewed Thurman Thomas regarding the RB position becoming devalued in today's NFL...as usual, Thurman always has interesting thoughts.

 

https://apnews.com/article/nfl-running-back-salaries-f4d564fbaf9b134e342b12e22ba13156

 

Also, an interesting tidbit on Cook and his holdout...from what it said in the article, this is part of a larger plan amongst the RB's to start driving the position's value back up, as they talked about a text chain among the RB's talking about this, and Cook seemingly held out in relation to this goal in mind.  Not sure if this angle was covered or not while it was going on, but essentially it seems like Cook is part of a larger ploy at work by the RB's to force teams to start paying them better.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

12 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

AP interviewed Thurman Thomas regarding the RB position becoming devalued in today's NFL...as usual, Thurman always has interesting thoughts.

 

https://apnews.com/article/nfl-running-back-salaries-f4d564fbaf9b134e342b12e22ba13156

 

Also, an interesting tidbit on Cook and his holdout...from what it said in the article, this is part of a larger plan amongst the RB's to start driving the position's value back up, as they talked about a text chain among the RB's talking about this, and Cook seemingly held out in relation to this goal in mind.  Not sure if this angle was covered or not while it was going on, but essentially it seems like Cook is part of a larger ploy at work by the RB's to force teams to start paying them better.

 

For running backs - they difference between good-great-HOF is.. usually less than a yard per carry.  It's very much also tied to the offensive line (So is the QB but it seems less important for their paycheck).  

 

I always look at it with running backs at a smaller level.  In a single game will his impact be greater than a replacement? Does this guy play his best in the big games, the playoffs, etc?  If the answer is yes, pay him market value.  If you don't think so, the investment (financial or draft) needs to match what you want in contributions.  

Edited 5 hours ago by Bleeding Bills Blue

[billsfan89]

RB's have evolved to help more in the passing game so that they can have so much more added value. I think Lev Bell and Matt Forte were good examples of what a great pass catching RB who can stay on the field during run situations can do for a offense. I think RB play is very much accelerated or decelerated by the play around them. Offensive line as well as the QB/general passing game can lift up or drag down a passing attack so much in the NFL. 

 

I think RB's are valued fairly now. I think there was a time when no RB's were getting paid and it was just a complete over correction of the market. Now teams properly value their RB's and are willing to pay them if they can be dynamic in the passing game (unless you are Derrick Henry).

[MJS]

Running backs have always been very important to offenses. That's not the issue. The issue is that there are so many running backs that can do it. The drop off from the really good ones to just average ones is not that significant. We rocked with Devin Singletary for years, and he is just a below average running back, but it was fine. You can operate your offense just fine with a guy like that. There are a thousand Devin Singletaries, and you can pay just a little bit more and have a pretty dynamic, above average back. There are tons of those guys too.

 

So, it isn't that demand is low, it is that supply is high. You can find good running backs at any round in the draft. Bring in a cheap free agent and he can get you production. The offensive line is more important for rushing production anyway. And if your running back has a deficiency, that's not a big deal because you can bring in another RB who does that thing well and just have a committee approach.

 

And the last issue is just the longevity. They break down extremely fast after 30.

 

So, I'm sorry, but they don't deserve to get paid the big bucks like other positions do. A few of them are getting a little more money, but it isn't really moving the needle that much in the grand scheme of things. 

Edited 5 hours ago by MJS

[hondo in seattle]

I don't know why RBs get paid less per yard than receivers...

 

 

 

The top five backs last season got paid $7,949 per yard contributed to the offense.  The top five receivers got paid $24,276 per yard.  I think the RBs have a point.

[dorquemada]

15 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

I don't know why RBs get paid less per yard than receivers...

 

 

 

The top five backs last season got paid $7,949 per yard contributed to the offense.  The top five receivers got paid $24,276 per yard.  I think the RBs have a point.

 

that's a wild table.  thank you for sharing!

[Virgil]

17 minutes ago, MJS said:

Running backs have always been very important to offenses. That's not the issue. The issue is that there are so many running backs that can do it. The drop off from the really good ones to just average ones is not that significant. We rocked with Devin Singletary for years, and he is just a below average running back, but it was fine. You can operate your offense just fine with a guy like that. There are a thousand Devin Singletaries, and you can pay just a little bit more and have a pretty dynamic, above average back. There are tons of those guys too.

 

So, it isn't that demand is low, it is that supply is high. You can find good running backs at any round in the draft. Bring in a cheap free agent and he can get you production. The offensive line is more important for rushing production anyway. And if your running back has a deficiency, that's not a big deal because you can bring in another RB who does that thing well and just have a committee approach.

 

And the last issue is just the longevity. They break down extremely fast after 30.

 

So, I'm sorry, but they don't deserve to get paid the big bucks like other positions do. A few of them are getting a little more money, but it isn't really moving the needle that much in the grand scheme of things. 

 

I personally think it's the ambiguity around when the drop off actually happens with age.  Most of these guys are due for a second contract around age 26.  Giving someone a 3-4 year contract, when you don't know if their body will break down within that contract, PLUS (as you stated), there's so much cheaper replacement talent that can be found with mid-draft rookies, that teams don't really have an incentive to pay them.  

[Brand J]

16 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

I don't know why RBs get paid less per yard than receivers...

 

 

 

The top five backs last season got paid $7,949 per yard contributed to the offense.  The top five receivers got paid $24,276 per yard.  I think the RBs have a point.

And in addition to many more touches, they get asked to do more - rush, block, and catch.

[The Jokeman]

17 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

I don't know why RBs get paid less per yard than receivers...

 

 

 

The top five backs last season got paid $7,949 per yard contributed to the offense.  The top five receivers got paid $24,276 per yard.  I think the RBs have a point.

In most offense the RBs outside of QBs get the most touches in a game. Too what about same chart with yard per touch?

[TheyCallMeAndy]

Almost like a RB Union that Thurman just spilled the beans on. 

[Big Turk]

9 minutes ago, The Jokeman said:

In most offense the RBs outside of QBs get the most touches in a game. Too what about same chart with yard per touch?

 

Considering most WR's are touching the ball an average of 8-10 yards down the field, would not be a fair comparison when they have a 13-15 yard head start from where the RB begins touching the ball 3-5 yards behind the LOS.

Edited 4 hours ago by Big Turk

[BillsShredder83]

29 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

RB's have evolved to help more in the passing game so that they can have so much more added value. I think Lev Bell and Matt Forte were good examples of what a great pass catching RB who can stay on the field during run situations can do for a offense. I think RB play is very much accelerated or decelerated by the play around them. Offensive line as well as the QB/general passing game can lift up or drag down a passing attack so much in the NFL. 

 

I think RB's are valued fairly now. I think there was a time when no RB's were getting paid and it was just a complete over correction of the market. Now teams properly value their RB's and are willing to pay them if they can be dynamic in the passing game (unless you are Derrick Henry).

Thurman is 2 years behind the ball here, or at least the article is, maybe hes been chiming in.

 

Its all part of the cyclical nature if the league. 2018-2021 passing really exploded. As a result we saw LB's in the Edmunds grow popular draft time. Guys that were essentially an extra DB on the field first and foremost and if the LB could thump in the run game (obv tremaine couldnt) that was a "bonus".

 

Defensive backfields started loading up on these guys that were harder to toss the rock against, but weren't exceptional in the run game, but they were enough to stop the major threat, the pass.

 

A Bunch of teams around 2020-2021 were in qb purgatory,  so they started leaning back into the run game as their advantage against these smaller LBs.

 

NE did it with Mac Jones, I forget the backs.

 

Colts were doing it with Jonathan Taylor.

 

Browns with Chubb and Hunt.

 

It worked! Even though those teams were lower seeded they were teams we didnt want to bump into in 1st rd. Not cause they were powerhouse franchises, but a mismatch for the way the top teams were built.

 

2022 tides started shifting, heck we've even seen it here. Eagles drafted jihad Campbell this year in 1st rd!!! I know he brings some pass rush and is a good player... but he seems like a skill set that wouldn't have been a premier demand even 2-3 years ago.

 

Leo Chennel might be a better example too. He hasn't exactly lit the world on fire, but he went late 3rd rd. I think if he came out this year, he would've went late first early 2nd as a thumper in the run game.

 

Tl:dr it's all cyclical. As beefy LBers start to fill up team rooms, in a few years, we'll probably see a REnaissance of the pass game like we did. 

[2003Contenders]

I agree that it certainly isn't fair, given the responsibilities that are placed at the feet of RBs versus WRs in the NFL. However, I understand why the disparity exists:

 

1. More and more these days we see RBs who are specialized in their roles, leading to the now notorious Running Back By Committee approach. There just aren't many bell cow, 3-down RBs in the modern NFL.

 

2. Due to the wear and tear that RBs take (as opposed to WRs), their career-life expectancy is typically shorter. That also means greater risk for teams who are negotiating with a RB on his 2nd contract and beyond.

 

3. Much of this, unfortunately, is also related to pure genetics. WRs tend to be some of the finest athletes on the field in terms of size-to-speed ratio. There simply are not many guys that fit such a prototype walking around on this planet. Meanwhile, even in the modern era, quality RBs come in all shapes and sizes.

[BillsShredder83]

35 minutes ago, MJS said:

Running backs have always been very important to offenses. That's not the issue. The issue is that there are so many running backs that can do it. The drop off from the really good ones to just average ones is not that significant. We rocked with Devin Singletary for years, and he is just a below average running back, but it was fine. You can operate your offense just fine with a guy like that. There are a thousand Devin Singletaries, and you can pay just a little bit more and have a pretty dynamic, above average back. There are tons of those guys too.

 

So, it isn't that demand is low, it is that supply is high. You can find good running backs at any round in the draft. Bring in a cheap free agent and he can get you production. The offensive line is more important for rushing production anyway. And if your running back has a deficiency, that's not a big deal because you can bring in another RB who does that thing well and just have a committee approach.

 

And the last issue is just the longevity. They break down extremely fast after 30.

 

So, I'm sorry, but they don't deserve to get paid the big bucks like other positions do. A few of them are getting a little more money, but it isn't really moving the needle that much in the grand scheme of things. 

This should be studied!! Workhorse backs used to average 25-30, 35 carries per game and play till they were old. Emmitt, Jamal Lewis, Eddie george etc etc

 

They were seeing double the carries and double the effective years in the nfl. WTF happened to them? I don't buy any 'kids are getting softer' bs. Its strange!!!

[HardyBoy]

I was just watching something on Shaun Alexander and how his body broke down basically right after signing a big contract extension. I also think Ricky Williams falls into this category as well.

 

Both of their teams gave them on way way way too many carries...so much so that Williams decided he needed to take some time off to rest his body in order to essentially survive, and then the amount of vilification he received from that...it was wild and the attacks were extremely personal on him and yeah, it wasn't cool.

 

What I'm saying is that teams often use their running backs in unethical ways that contribute to their bodies breaking down and then turning around and saying see, the position is not worth paying...except they're largely causing that to happen

[MJS]

7 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

I was just watching something on Shaun Alexander and how his body broke down basically right after signing a big contract extension. I also think Ricky Williams falls into this category as well.

 

Both of their teams gave them on way way way too many carries...so much so that Williams decided he needed to take some time off to rest his body in order to essentially survive, and then the amount of vilification he received from that...it was wild and the attacks were extremely personal on him and yeah, it wasn't cool.

 

What I'm saying is that teams often use their running backs in unethical ways that contribute to their bodies breaking down and then turning around and saying see, the position is not worth paying...except they're largely causing that to happen

That's the nature of the position. There's nothing unethical about it. Durability is really important for a running back. If you can't do it, there is a line of young guys waiting to take your job.

[DrDawkinstein]

39 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

I don't know why RBs get paid less per yard than receivers...

 

 

 

The top five backs last season got paid $7,949 per yard contributed to the offense.  The top five receivers got paid $24,276 per yard.  I think the RBs have a point.

 

Good stuff.

 

I made this argument repeatedly during the Cook saga threads.

 

Cook had 207 carries and 32 receptions. He had the ball 239 times. He accounted for 1267 yards and 18 TDs.

Shakir, who just got $15M/yr, and just had his best year yet, had 78 total touches, 825 yds, and 4 TDs.

 

 

[LEBills]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

AP interviewed Thurman Thomas regarding the RB position becoming devalued in today's NFL...as usual, Thurman always has interesting thoughts.

 

https://apnews.com/article/nfl-running-back-salaries-f4d564fbaf9b134e342b12e22ba13156

 

Also, an interesting tidbit on Cook and his holdout...from what it said in the article, this is part of a larger plan amongst the RB's to start driving the position's value back up, as they talked about a text chain among the RB's talking about this, and Cook seemingly held out in relation to this goal in mind.  Not sure if this angle was covered or not while it was going on, but essentially it seems like Cook is part of a larger ploy at work by the RB's to force teams to start paying them better.

It’s not really new. They started on this a few years ago.
 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38058656/star-nfl-rbs-meet-zoom-talk-state-position

[boyst]

but if the NFL does this it is colluding.

 

spare me.

[HardyBoy]

32 minutes ago, MJS said:

That's the nature of the position. There's nothing unethical about it. Durability is really important for a running back. If you can't do it, there is a line of young guys waiting to take your job.

 

Says who on it being the nature of the position?