With the elapsing of the franchise tag deadline and a multitude of RB in their prime not offered long-term deals it all but confirmed that the league sees RB as an expendable, replaceable commodity among the 53.

RB across the league have voiced their frustration with the state of the league, but I've yet to hear any suggestions from the vox populi to improve things.

So, that brings us to the question - How do you fix the RB devaluation across the league? Or, can it even be fixed?

---

For me, I think it has to be a league initiative to fix, and the best way to revalue the position is to reform rules to make the run game more appealing or effective. I don't exactly know what they could do, except to either undo some rule changes that opened up the pass game, make concessions to incentivize the run game (ie first down marker @10yds for run plays, 15 yds for pass plays?), or allow RB to have forward motion inside the tackle box pre-snap? I still don't know though if teams wouldn't just take advantage of the new rules while still churning through RBs and not really keeping them around for a second term.

I've seen or considered a number of other changes to improve the situation, but they all have their pitfalls:

- incentivized pay - recently heard that the league has some pooled money for players whose performance exceeds contract value. I can see this becoming akin to wait staff pay, where the owners would keep paying the pittance, and count on the league to make up the difference when their players do well.

- shorten college careers for RB - Wish I copied the source, but one of the arguments was that college wears a lot of these RB down (Oh hai Mike Hart), and they are spent by the time they reach the league and play out a 4 year rookie deal. The proposal was to reduce the post-HS duration for a collegiate RB to be darft eligible. I saw this becoming a classification issue - any athletic player in college would want to be classified as an RB to get out of school and get that contract faster. NIL may slow that pace, but too early to really tell yet.

- Group WR, TE, and RB equally for tag purposes - WR would take a hit, an this would require NFLPA buy-in. Would owners use the tag on TE and RB, or just take advantage of the lower cost to tag/sign a more valued WR?

- Exclude 1 RB salary per team from cap consideration - Would the Giants pay Barkley $15 per season if it didn't hurt their cap? Is he worth $15 per season to them, or to another team? You would have to require a set number of carries per season to qualify as an RB to avoid abuse, but there is still the uncertainty that teams would want to shell out big money for the Austin Ekelers when they can have a rookie on a fourth round contract play instead. Some owners are cheap bastards.

Do you all have suggestions?

---

The game changed.

The rules changed and continue to change.

It is a passing league, QBs are protected and the elite QBs are the celebrated driving force behind the popularity of the sport.

Running backs aren't returning to glory any time soon, and neither will their treatment by smart GMs who know better than to tie up money at the position.

Seven years till the next CBA gets negotiated and maybe then they can institute some additional incentive payment scheme for bell cow backs who get X number of touches and contribute X amount of offensive production for their teams.

I don't really see much else they could do.

The league already has something similar in place for undrafted players who end up with major starting roles so they earn more than the meager sum originally agreed to.
They could do this for backs who shine but earn under a certain threshold of salary.
MAYBE the league would agree to amend the current CBA with this sort of thing, but I don't know.

---

The game changed. Some teams are already reverting back a bit to use the current game against their opponents. The tacks have done it for years with Henry. You see the Giants doing it. The 49ers doing it. Baltimore, etc.

We just saw two RBs get selected in the top 15 back in April. We still see some RBs going in RD1 here and there. Everything is cyclical. Pat Mahomes and Joe Burrow cant be Pat Mahomes and Joe Burrow if they're on the bench for more than half a game.

Controlling tempo and clock management is going to come back at some point via running the football. As LBs and SSs get lighter? You watch. Teams will start adding heavier lineman, the FB position and traditional TEs to tee off on them and make short work out of them.

You could make the argument that Pederson is doing it already based on April's draft class. Strange, Bigsby and Parish are all in that power, heavy handed run mold offensively.

At some point. 1500 yard rushers will start to climb and 4500+ yard passers will start to decline. Its all trendy.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

The game changed.

The rules changed and continue to change.

It is a passing league, QBs are protected and the elite QBs are the celebrated driving force behind the popularity of the sport.

Running backs aren't returning to glory any time soon, and neither will their treatment by smart GMs who know better than to tie up money at the position.

Seven years till the next CBA gets negotiated and maybe then they can institute some additional incentive payment scheme for bell cow backs who get X number of touches and contribute X amount of offensive production for their teams.

I don't really see much else they could do.

The league already has something similar in place for undrafted players who end up with major starting roles so they earn more than the meager sum originally agreed to.
They could do this for backs who shine but earn under a certain threshold of salary.
MAYBE the league would agree to amend the current CBA with this sort of thing, but I don't know.

 I agree completely.
 It is a CBA problem that can only be fixed with a new (or amended) CBA.
  Right now, rookies drafted in later rounds or going undrafted are eligible to receive a bonus if they play a certain number of snaps. It takes at least 2 years to earn the bonus.
 To me the only fair thing would be to expand this so it applies to all rookies, with additional bonuses being available based on production, not just snaps.   There should be a bonus for any running back on their rookie contract who appears on the top 10 rushing yards list for the season, for instance.  A guy should only need one good year to earn a bonus like this, and then they could earn it again if they do the same thing next year.

---

The game changed. Some teams are already reverting back a bit to use the current game against their opponents. The tacks have done it for years with Henry. You see the Giants doing it. The 49ers doing it. Baltimore, etc.

We just saw two RBs get selected in the top 15 back in April. We still see some RBs going in RD1 here and there. Everything is cyclical. Pat Mahomes and Joe Burrow cant be Pat Mahomes and Joe Burrow if they're on the bench for more than half a game.

Controlling tempo and clock management is going to come back at some point via running the football. As LBs and SSs get lighter? You watch. Teams will start adding heavier lineman, the FB position and traditional TEs to tee off on them and make short work out of them.

You could make the argument that Pederson is doing it already based on April's draft class. Strange, Bigsby and Parish are all in that power, heavy handed run mold offensively.

At some point. 1500 yard rushers will start to climb and 4500+ yard passers will start to decline. Its all trendy.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

You're right that play style and selection can be cyclical,  but even if teams start calling more running plays, that doesn't mean the guy getting the ball is a highly paid guy on a second contract. It's probably still gonna be a lower paid journeyman, or someone on their rookie contract.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The game changed. Some teams are already reverting back a bit to use the current game against their opponents. The tacks have done it for years with Henry. You see the Giants doing it. The 49ers doing it. Baltimore, etc.

We just saw two RBs get selected in the top 15 back in April. We still see some RBs going in RD1 here and there. Everything is cyclical. Pat Mahomes and Joe Burrow cant be Pat Mahomes and Joe Burrow if they're on the bench for more than half a game.

Controlling tempo and clock management is going to come back at some point via running the football. As LBs and SSs get lighter? You watch. Teams will start adding heavier lineman, the FB position and traditional TEs to tee off on them and make short work out of them.

You could make the argument that Pederson is doing it already based on April's draft class. Strange, Bigsby and Parish are all in that power, heavy handed run mold offensively.

At some point. 1500 yard rushers will start to climb and 4500+ yard passers will start to decline. Its all trendy.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

This! Pederson seems to be adjusting the offense akin to a more explosive version of Jon Gruden's Raiders offense that was a West-Coast passing game with a power running game. Bigsby w/Engram & Strange will gash defenses with lighter linebackers and nickelbacks playing more snaps. Then, when the defense creeps in, Trevor goes for the knockout punch over the top.

---

"I am only an average man, but by George, I work harder at it than the average man." - Teddy Roosevelt

At some point. 1500 yard rushers will start to climb and 4500+ yard passers will start to decline. Its all trendy.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Not going to happen. Teams need multiple RBs now. You aren't winning with just one unless you use them up quickly. I guess the extra games may help but teams want quantity over 1 quality.

Players are sidelined a lot more now over injuries and if you pay 1 RB what you could have paid 2, you may be losing games.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

The game changed.

The rules changed and continue to change.

It is a passing league, QBs are protected and the elite QBs are the celebrated driving force behind the popularity of the sport.

Running backs aren't returning to glory any time soon, and neither will their treatment by smart GMs who know better than to tie up money at the position.

Seven years till the next CBA gets negotiated and maybe then they can institute some additional incentive payment scheme for bell cow backs who get X number of touches and contribute X amount of offensive production for their teams.

I don't really see much else they could do.

The league already has something similar in place for undrafted players who end up with major starting roles so they earn more than the meager sum originally agreed to.
They could do this for backs who shine but earn under a certain threshold of salary.
MAYBE the league would agree to amend the current CBA with this sort of thing, but I don't know.

 I agree completely.
 It is a CBA problem that can only be fixed with a new (or amended) CBA.
  Right now, rookies drafted in later rounds or going undrafted are eligible to receive a bonus if they play a certain number of snaps. It takes at least 2 years to earn the bonus.
 To me the only fair thing would be to expand this so it applies to all rookies, with additional bonuses being available based on production, not just snaps.   There should be a bonus for any running back on their rookie contract who appears on the top 10 rushing yards list for the season, for instance.  A guy should only need one good year to earn a bonus like this, and then they could earn it again if they do the same thing next year.

---

The game changed. Some teams are already reverting back a bit to use the current game against their opponents. The tacks have done it for years with Henry. You see the Giants doing it. The 49ers doing it. Baltimore, etc.

We just saw two RBs get selected in the top 15 back in April. We still see some RBs going in RD1 here and there. Everything is cyclical. Pat Mahomes and Joe Burrow cant be Pat Mahomes and Joe Burrow if they're on the bench for more than half a game.

Controlling tempo and clock management is going to come back at some point via running the football. As LBs and SSs get lighter? You watch. Teams will start adding heavier lineman, the FB position and traditional TEs to tee off on them and make short work out of them.

You could make the argument that Pederson is doing it already based on April's draft class. Strange, Bigsby and Parish are all in that power, heavy handed run mold offensively.

At some point. 1500 yard rushers will start to climb and 4500+ yard passers will start to decline. Its all trendy.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

You're right that play style and selection can be cyclical,  but even if teams start calling more running plays, that doesn't mean the guy getting the ball is a highly paid guy on a second contract. It's probably still gonna be a lower paid journeyman, or someone on their rookie contract.

How does the CBA change the positional value? Do you all see any possible rule change that might make teams rely more on run game that could be done before 2030?

Does anyone honestly think the CBA will restructure compensation for RB and the rest of the league will accept the hit in their own salaries?
And I could absolutely see money ball happen if the incentives are based on snap counts, carries, yardage, etc - set up RB by committee, pay three guys cheap and don't worry about hitting any of those milestones. What if an RB is op 3 at midseason, and breaks an ankle? No bucks for you.

It's messy. I think the only way to re-value the run game is to make the pass game harder. I don't see the league reverting, though. Fantasy, stats and highlight reels love them some inflated numbers.

---

Having a good running game is still really important.

---

Having a good running game is still really important.

But you don't need an elite running back to have a good running game.

Eagles, Chiefs and 49ers (before CMac obviously) all have good running games but they don't have elite backs.

---

 I agree completely.
 It is a CBA problem that can only be fixed with a new (or amended) CBA.
  Right now, rookies drafted in later rounds or going undrafted are eligible to receive a bonus if they play a certain number of snaps. It takes at least 2 years to earn the bonus.
 To me the only fair thing would be to expand this so it applies to all rookies, with additional bonuses being available based on production, not just snaps.   There should be a bonus for any running back on their rookie contract who appears on the top 10 rushing yards list for the season, for instance.  A guy should only need one good year to earn a bonus like this, and then they could earn it again if they do the same thing next year.

---

You're right that play style and selection can be cyclical,  but even if teams start calling more running plays, that doesn't mean the guy getting the ball is a highly paid guy on a second contract. It's probably still gonna be a lower paid journeyman, or someone on their rookie contract.

How does the CBA change the positional value? Do you all see any possible rule change that might make teams rely more on run game that could be done before 2030?

Does anyone honestly think the CBA will restructure compensation for RB and the rest of the league will accept the hit in their own salaries?
And I could absolutely see money ball happen if the incentives are based on snap counts, carries, yardage, etc - set up RB by committee, pay three guys cheap and don't worry about hitting any of those milestones. What if an RB is op 3 at midseason, and breaks an ankle? No bucks for you.

It's messy. I think the only way to re-value the run game is to make the pass game harder. I don't see the league reverting, though. Fantasy, stats and highlight reels love them some inflated numbers.

Long story long:
RBs are screwed in the current system money wise until further notice. A few elites will get notable 2nd contracts. Many strong contributors will not. They are too easily replaced in the 3rd-6th rounds and even an early rounder is a more acceptable salary to most teams' cap situation. 

They'll have to settle for 2 or 3 year deals below the value of their production if they want to keep playing after their rookie contract. 

The most common "fix" being floated by former players, fans and pundits is an incentive based pay structure amended into the CBA so that backs who are churning out significant production can receive a bump in salary that gets them closer to the pay scale of WR/TE who are producing similar numbers. 

Could smart GMs and coaches play a form of  "moneyball" with a committee of backs to keep a player out of certain incentive ranges? Yes, absolutely. 

But it's the only suggestion I've seen that gives these devalued backs any hope of getting paid in 2nd contracts. 

Personally - I understand why they are unhappy with the pay disparity, but it's hard for me to feel sorry for a guy taking 7 mil per year who thinks he's owed 12.
 Especially when we know full well that this position so frequently has players hit the injury or wear-and-tear wall in the middle of their 2nd deal.

---

Incentives will be a problem unless they are outside of the cap. There is no money left in the cap unless they remove money from somewhere else.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

https://twitter.com/espn/status/16838155...00000?s=20

---

Can RB devaluing be fixed?

No. There's nothing to fix. Running backs are worth what they are worth. Besides, if we "fix" the running back devaluing, what's next? Linebackers? Safeties?

---

RBs aren't devalued. One just got drafted with the 8th pick, another with the 2 pick. Multiple backs got tagged. If they were devalued they wouldn't be getting tagged and drafted so early. Chubb, McCaffrey, Henry, Jones etc. all got long term deals. It's just a position where the player declines at a younger age than most and teams are trying to protect themselves and get it right when they do

---

One thing they could do is take away the franchise tag for RBs

---

Having a good running game is still really important.

That wasn't the question, though. I think plenty of teams acknowledge the importance of the run game; however, how many teams are going to pay up to keep a guy around versus darfting a new RB when contract talks roll around? How many teams are going to pay a middling WR more than their bell-cow back?

Is there anything that can (or should it?) be done to acknowledge the importance of the run game, especially with the premium backs?

Here's a crazy figure I just noticed - the three tagged RB this year are making just over $10M. Of course, this by definition puts them just behind the top 5 RB salaries in the league. #5 is Aaron Jones, with an 11.5M avg salary. But get this - #6 on the list (excluding the 3 tagged players who were FA) is James Conner at $7M. You would think with top-5 delineation, that the variance from 5 to 6 would be a miniscule difference (for WR, it's $150K!). For RB the difference between 5 and 6 is over 50%! That's some disparity.

---

Incentives will be a problem unless they are outside of the cap. There is no money left in the cap unless they remove money from somewhere else.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

If the league deems them not likely to be earned (or categorizes them in similar fashion), I do not think the incentives count toward the cap.

I think the cap is central to anything done here, though - could the league require minimum or proportional spending of a team's cap by position? Could they incentivize spending on underpaid positions?

I hope you all are having as much fun thinking through this as I am.

---

Incentives will be a problem unless they are outside of the cap. There is no money left in the cap unless they remove money from somewhere else.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

These incentives could be outside the cap.  That's probably the best way.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

RBs aren't devalued.  One just got drafted with the 8th pick, another with the 2 pick.  Multiple backs got tagged.  If they were devalued they wouldn't be getting tagged and drafted so early.  Chubb, McCaffrey, Henry, Jones etc. all got long term deals.  It's just a position where the player declines at a younger age than most and teams are trying to protect themselves and get it right when they do

---

One thing they could do is take away the franchise tag for RBs

Yeah - they are.

Fewer and fewer productive backs are getting 2nd contracts and the offers they are receiving are not commensurate with their production numbers. Shorter deals as well.  That is a devaluing compared to how the position was formerly treated league-wide. 
If you were a top ten back and your rookie deal ran out - you most likely got paid handsomely 10 years ago. 
Teams are rethinking that methodology now. 

The tags you mentioned actually prove the point. Those guys used to get 4 year deals. Now they are getting tagged because the teams don't intend to keep them around for long. They'll just draft new ones to use up.

---

RBs aren't devalued.  One just got drafted with the 8th pick, another with the 2 pick.  Multiple backs got tagged.  If they were devalued they wouldn't be getting tagged and drafted so early.  Chubb, McCaffrey, Henry, Jones etc. all got long term deals.  It's just a position where the player declines at a younger age than most and teams are trying to protect themselves and get it right when they do

---

One thing they could do is take away the franchise tag for RBs

Yeah - they are.

Fewer and fewer productive backs are getting 2nd contracts and the offers they are receiving are not commensurate with their production numbers. Shorter deals as well.  That is a devaluing compared to how the position was formerly treated league-wide. 
If you were a top ten back and your rookie deal ran out - you most likely got paid handsomely 10 years ago. 
Teams are rethinking that methodology now. 

The tags you mentioned actually prove the point. Those guys used to get 4 year deals. Now they are getting tagged because the teams don't intend to keep them around for long. They'll just draft new ones to use up.

No they aren't. Teams are just being smarter about it being they have a shorter shelf life.  Why not use the tag on the position with the shorter shelf life?  If they were devalued one wouldnt of just got selected with the 8th pick and one with the 12th. Hell, we just took one in the first a couple years ago and its looking like a damn good pick whether you liked it or not.  Not to mention one was taken right before Etienne as well. If you draft a RB in the first why not just use his first 5 years on the rookie contract with the 5 year option and then tag him twice, thats 7 years and just covering your own [BLEEP] in the last couple instead of the huge contract.  If hes 21 or 22 when drafted he will be 28 or 29 after those 7 years and usually when backs start to decline a bit.  Teams are just being smarter about it and covering their own [BLEEP] and i still think backs will continue to go in the 1st and 2nd rounds if the talent is there being how valuable they can be.

---

Yeah - they are.

Fewer and fewer productive backs are getting 2nd contracts and the offers they are receiving are not commensurate with their production numbers. Shorter deals as well.  That is a devaluing compared to how the position was formerly treated league-wide. 
If you were a top ten back and your rookie deal ran out - you most likely got paid handsomely 10 years ago. 
Teams are rethinking that methodology now. 

The tags you mentioned actually prove the point. Those guys used to get 4 year deals. Now they are getting tagged because the teams don't intend to keep them around for long. They'll just draft new ones to use up.

No they aren't. Teams are just being smarter about it being they have a shorter shelf life.  Why not use the tag on the position with the shorter shelf life?  If they were devalued one wouldnt of just got selected with the 8th pick and one with the 12th. Hell, we just took one in the first a couple years ago and its looking like a damn good pick whether you liked it or not.  Not to mention one was taken right before Etienne as well. If you draft a RB in the first why not just use his first 5 years on the rookie contract with the 5 year option and then tag him twice, thats 7 years and just covering your own [BLEEP] in the last couple instead of the huge contract.  If hes 21 or 22 when drafted he will be 28 or 29 after those 7 years and usually when backs start to decline a bit.  Teams are just being smarter about it and covering their own [BLEEP] and i still think backs will continue to go in the 1st and 2nd rounds if the talent is there being how valuable they can be.

Teams being smarter about keeping them literally equates to a decrease in their value 

If more and more teams are not signing then to 4 and 5 year second contracts then they are literally devalued 

It's pretty simple

It doesn't mean they aren't 'valuable' 
It means they can't get paid like they used to - which - is - ummm - really?? Do i need to continue?

---