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

[thenorthremembers]

3 hours 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.

 

This is a way too simplified chart, and doesnt tell the story of pay in the NFL.   Using this formula Josh Allen made $8,521 per yard, is he under paid?   For now, its passing league so the Quarterbacks, Wideouts, Left Tackles, Edge Rushers, and #1 Corners make the money.      

 

 

[BillsShredder83]

2 hours ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

They changed the rules to make passing over the middle easier and FAR safer for one. They call more defensive holding penalties, spread offense concepts have been mixed in considerably more to create easier reads, offensive lines are more athletic to contribute in screen games, QBs are protected WAY more than in the past as well. 

 

A lot changed to make the net gain greater and net risk of a pass play far less than it was.  

I mean what happened to RB's bodies that at age 26/27 they fall off a cliff.... they have half the touches and half the career length as primary backs of the 90's/early 2000's (probably before then too, just not old enough to remember).

 

Totally understand what you mean on the productivity of the position going down!

[HardyBoy]

15 minutes ago, MJS said:

Sure, which is why so many teams have gone to a committee approach. It takes less off of your starting back, but that also makes you less valuable to your team because you are doing less. It isn't complicated. The more you do, the more valuable you are to the team.

 

Meanwhile, the rest of the offense is able to play close to 100% of snaps and only come off the field for different formations and personnel packages. Pretty much only running backs need breaks. Sometimes receivers if they run a bunch of long routes in a row.

 

Shakir played 54% of snaps last year...Cook played 45%

[MJS]

10 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

Shakir played 54% of snaps last year...Cook played 45%

I addressed that. Receivers switch in and out according to personnel packages. Shakir is a slot receiver, so is especially prone to being taken off the field. But the top receivers play much higher percentages of snaps. Ja'marr Chase plays 80-90% of snaps. Derrick Henry plays 60% of snaps, or less. Barkley played 70%. But most "workhorse" style backs play in that 60-70% range while most top receivers play 75-90% of snaps. Running backs need the rest.

[HardyBoy]

6 minutes ago, MJS said:

I addressed that. Receivers switch in and out according to personnel packages. Shakir is a slot receiver, so is especially prone to being taken off the field. But the top receivers play much higher percentages of snaps. Ja'marr Chase plays 80-90% of snaps. Derrick Henry plays 60% of snaps, or less. Barkley played 70%. But most "workhorse" style backs play in that 60-70% range while most top receivers play 75-90% of snaps. Running backs need the rest.

 

Shakir is making more money than Cook... I'm not comparing him to Chase

 

If having workhorse style backs significantly decreases career longevity and in turn allows teams to point to workhorse backs and say their careers are short...who made the rule they needed to be workhorse backs?

 

If Cook makes it into a third contract...he's had a lot less usage going all the way back to college...also, I'd argue the Bills aren't using a running back by committee as much as a running back by situation...much like pulling receivers off the field for different personnel packages and such...also, #1 receivers are on the field for a lot of snaps, but they're also decoys a lot of the time/run clear out routes to help other people get open

Edited September 2 by HardyBoy

[hondo in seattle]

4 hours ago, BigAl2526 said:

I think the bias toward WRs in the league is due to the perception that elite WRs tend to give their teams more chunk plays.  RBs get more at least twice as many touches but yards per touch is much lower.  Fans are entertained more when their team has an explosive offense than they are by a relentless ground game.  There may be a perception that apart from a few "freaks" at the RB position, top WRs might be more athletic.

 

I agree with this.  Back in the 1960s and 70s, the best athletes - guys who could run, cut, and jump - often became running backs.  RB may have been the most glamorous position in all of sports.  In the 60s, for example, five #1 overall draft picks were RBs.  Only one was a QB and one was a WR.   But the last time a RB was picked #1 overall was 30 years ago.  

Nowadays, the best athletes become WRs or, maybe, corners.  

 

Still, I think generally speaking that a RB who gains 1,000 yards on 5 ypc is as valuable as a WR who gains 1,000 yards on 12 ypr.  Both are moving the ball equally.  Both efficiently.   

[blacklabel]

8 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

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).

 

Yeah, I agree with this. I think the idea of the RB position being easily interchangeable is starting to fade a bit. Seems like more teams wanna have a guy that really fits their system and culture. Which, of course you wanna have that across the board but it's not always possible at all positions given the cap. 

[Matt_In_NH]

Running g backs have shorter careers than wrs.   Teams use analytics in many ways including to decide who to pay and who not to pay based on data.  Can pay for different positions get out of whack?  Yes I think so with the one upmanship of contracts there are more opportunities for WRs to get paid because there are more of them.  Each one bumps the market.   You would think rarity should be valuable but not always.