I heard someone mention that the RBs should go on strike.  It's an interesting idea. They could.  But the point of the story is that there are 2 or 3 well qualified athletes who are not on any roster who may be willing to be scabs.

See that's the thing - if the RB sit out, I wager that a number of guys playing in Canada or XFL take their chance on the opportunity they can do as well as the middling RB in the picket lines. The top RBs may be able to flaunt that their performance is not getting matched, but if teams can survive or even thrive with a committee of guys making league minimum, the position may be even worse off.

The only way the strike would have any teeth is if other players at other positions sat in a move of solidarity. But how many of those 'overpaid' WR, QB, DE will be willing to benefit the RB pay if it takes a chunk out of their slice of the pie?

---

Why should we care if running backs are being devalued? Is this some kind of crisis or something that needs to be fixed?

---

Exactly, they just have to stay healthy and play at a high level and they will get their money.

....while the team runs them into the dirt, drafts their replacement before the first contract expires, and everyone else in the huddle makes exponentially more.

If only it were easy enough to just be the next Derrick Henry, Adrian Peterson or Ladanian Tomlinson.

Most guys aren't that - they are mid-level guys like D'Ernest Johnson, J. Hasty, etc. And unfortunately, there's almost always a new crop of those kinds of guys either playing in other leagues, darft eligible, or let go by their last team because they found a cheaper, comparable replacement.

---

Why should we care if running backs are being devalued?  Is this some kind of crisis or something that needs to be fixed?

If you're not a RB in the NFL producing good numbers and approaching a contract year, there is no reason to be concerned. 

I'm not.

---

Not devalued but realistic with them not being able to remain at a high level of play for a long time. Teams still spend money or picks on them.

Comparing them to WRs is crazy because teams have to over pay for garbage there. You need 6 WRs and you can be fine with 2 RBs. The talent and limited spots on a roster make it easier to find talent later or even sign someone off the street. WRs are much harder to find late and the production is spread around. It enables interchangeable WRs to make close to $10 million. A WR off the street won't play but a RB could be successful enough.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Yup, stay healthy and play at a high level and they will get their money even if it's one year deals

You realize those are the two most difficult parts of being an RB in today's NFL, right?

JRob was never the same after his injury.
D'ernest Johnson had 534 yards rushing in 2021. In 2022, 2 fewer games played and 517 fewer yards run.

Why hasn't Zeke gotten a deal if all they gotta do is stay healthy and play at a high level? Not even a one-year deal at this stage. Teams are already in camp and prepping for the season. Is this just another facet of the new world order for RB? No deal until seasons begin, and no time to practice with team or learn playbook (where past success may in itself be justification for the devaluing)?

---

Yup, stay healthy and play at a high level and they will get their money even if it's one year deals

You realize those are the two most difficult parts of being an RB in today's NFL, right?

JRob was never the same after his injury.
D'ernest Johnson had 534 yards rushing in 2021. In 2022, 2 fewer games played and 517 fewer yards run.

Why hasn't Zeke gotten a deal if all they gotta do is stay healthy and play at a high level? Not even a one-year deal at this stage. Teams are already in camp and prepping for the season. Is this just another facet of the new world order for RB? No deal until seasons begin, and no time to practice with team or learn playbook (where past success may in itself be justification for the devaluing)?

You are stating to catch on, hence the reason teams arent wanting to sign them to a long term deal when the franchise tag is an option.  Why not franchise tag them when it's an option?  Zekes play has declined almost every year he as been in the league and last year his ayp was a career low.  I'm sure he has gotten a few offers already though, he likely just waiting till training camp is over.  I bet he will be on a team before the regular season starts.

---

You realize those are the two most difficult parts of being an RB in today's NFL, right?

JRob was never the same after his injury.
D'ernest Johnson had 534 yards rushing in 2021. In 2022, 2 fewer games played and 517 fewer yards run.

Why hasn't Zeke gotten a deal if all they gotta do is stay healthy and play at a high level? Not even a one-year deal at this stage. Teams are already in camp and prepping for the season. Is this just another facet of the new world order for RB? No deal until seasons begin, and no time to practice with team or learn playbook (where past success may in itself be justification for the devaluing)?

You are stating to catch on, hence the reason teams arent wanting to sign them to a long term deal when the franchise tag is an option.  Why not franchise tag them when it's an option?  Zekes play has declined almost every year he as been in the league and last year his ayp was a career low.  I'm sure he has gotten a few offers already though, he likely just waiting till training camp is over.  I bet he will be on a team before the regular season starts.

So stay healthy, play at a high level and the reward is having no guarantee of future earning, unlike the rest of the players at other positions around the league. Why are teams not willing to commit to a "high-level" player at the position, when they are perfectly willing to do the same at every other position on the field? Heck, even PUNTERS are given multi-year deals, and they are probably as replaceable as any RB.

You're right. I'm getting it. Crystal frickin' clear. Owners do not hold the RB position to any long-term value. churn and burn.

---

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

Sorry to pick on this particular comment, but I see Bigsby described this way a lot around here. Is that really his game though?  Admittedly, I don't watch a lot of college football.  I watch highlights of offensive players for fantasy dynasty league purposes, but that's mostly it.  Bigsby's measurables are similar to ETN's.  The difference is ETN is an inch or so shorter and a few pounds heavier and noticeably faster.  Also, ETN has Bigsby on the vert and broad jump category which can be an indication of lower body strength/burst.  Bigsby did outpace ETN on the bench by a few reps.

In watching Bigsby's highlights, his game seems very similar to ETN's to me. He's quick enough, he has good vision and he's a threat in the passing game as well.  I didn't see a lot of him powering through and over guys or dragging piles.  Sure he's good at breaking arm tackles, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's the short yardage power back. I know that's not specifically what you said above, but I've seen it mentioned here multiple times since we drafted him. ETN breaks arm tackles as well, but it's somewhat clear short yardage/stacked line/power run situations are probably not what he's best suited for and I would argue that his measurables are more desirable in the short yardage/power category than Bigsby's.

All this leads me to wonder, did I miss something about Bigsby's game by only watching a few 5 minute long clips of highlights of his college career, or are we mistakenly presuming he's significantly more of a power back than ETN or other guys on the roster because his nickname is "Tank"?

---

You are stating to catch on, hence the reason teams arent wanting to sign them to a long term deal when the franchise tag is an option.  Why not franchise tag them when it's an option?  Zekes play has declined almost every year he as been in the league and last year his ayp was a career low.  I'm sure he has gotten a few offers already though, he likely just waiting till training camp is over.  I bet he will be on a team before the regular season starts.

So stay healthy, play at a high level and the reward is having no guarantee of future earning, unlike the rest of the players at other positions around the league. Why are teams not willing to commit to a "high-level" player at the position, when they are perfectly willing to do the same at every other position on the field? Heck, even PUNTERS are given multi-year deals, and they are probably as replaceable as any RB.

You're right. I'm getting it. Crystal frickin' clear. Owners do not hold the RB position to any long-term value. churn and burn.

Do you think teams value punters more because the good ones good long term deals?  Or how about its rare one gets injured and they can play at a high level into their lat 30's?  RBs will contiued to get drafted in the high rounds if they are talented enough though because of what they can bring to a team.  If they are asking for to much money just tag them twice and then sign them to short term deals or find another very good one in the draft being their play will usually start to decline around that time or short after.  What owners do you speak of?  GMs dont want to give them long term contracts because it is the position where the player declines the fastest and the position that the player could most likely get injured.  Why not play it smart and tag them when you have that option?  The player is still getting paid he just has to earn it each year.

---

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?

Yes, even the backs that get a 4 or 5 year deal there is an out at year 2/3. Look at our contracts.  The GM's are acting in the team's best interest and the RB's are acting in the their best interest.  The compensation for RB's is NOT broken at all so no need to fix it.  (unless you believe in the word entitlement)  I have faith everything will balance out in the end.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

So stay healthy, play at a high level and the reward is having no guarantee of future earning, unlike the rest of the players at other positions around the league. Why are teams not willing to commit to a "high-level" player at the position, when they are perfectly willing to do the same at every other position on the field? Heck, even PUNTERS are given multi-year deals, and they are probably as replaceable as any RB.

You're right. I'm getting it. Crystal frickin' clear. Owners do not hold the RB position to any long-term value. churn and burn.

Do you think teams value punters more because the good ones good long term deals?  Or how about its rare one gets injured and they can play at a high level into their lat 30's?  RBs will contiued to get drafted in the high rounds if they are talented enough though because of what they can bring to a team.  If they are asking for to much money just tag them twice and then sign them to short term deals or find another very good one in the draft being their play will usually start to decline around that time or short after.  What owners do you speak of?  GMs dont want to give them long term contracts because it is the position where the player declines the fastest and the position that the player could most likely get injured.  Why not play it smart and tag them when you have that option?  The player is still getting paid he just has to earn it each year.

LOL.  You’re doing a perfect job of explaining how the position has been devalued.  LOL.

---

Do you think teams value punters more because the good ones good long term deals?  Or how about its rare one gets injured and they can play at a high level into their lat 30's?  RBs will contiued to get drafted in the high rounds if they are talented enough though because of what they can bring to a team.  If they are asking for to much money just tag them twice and then sign them to short term deals or find another very good one in the draft being their play will usually start to decline around that time or short after.  What owners do you speak of?  GMs dont want to give them long term contracts because it is the position where the player declines the fastest and the position that the player could most likely get injured.  Why not play it smart and tag them when you have that option?  The player is still getting paid he just has to earn it each year.

LOL.  You’re doing a perfect job of explaining how the position has been devalued.  LOL.

LOL.. It's not devalued It's just playing it smart.  If the position was devalued RBs wouldn't of just got drafted in the top 12 picks and they wouldn't be getting tagged. Henry, Chubb, McCaffrey, Jones etc wouldn't  of gotten those big deals.  We wouldn't of just drafted one in the 3rd after taking one in the 1st 2 years ago and him just going for 1500 yards. The teams still want those backs they just want to cover their own [BLEEP] so if you have the tag option why not use it?  LOL

---

LOL.  You’re doing a perfect job of explaining how the position has been devalued.  LOL.

LOL.. It's not devalued It's just playing it smart.  If the position was devalued RBs wouldn't of just got drafted in the top 12 picks and they wouldn't be getting tagged. Henry, Chubb, McCaffrey, Jones etc wouldn't  of gotten those big deals.  We wouldn't of just drafted one in the 3rd after taking one in the 1st 2 years ago and him just going for 1500 yards. The teams still want those backs they just want to cover their own [BLEEP] so if you have the tag option why not use it?  LOL

You’re ridiculous.  End of story.

---

You get paid for what you’re expected to do moving forward not for what you have already done. GMs are playing the numbers which overwhelmingly support that human beings that play the RB position more often than not peak at age 27 or younger before their play starts to decline and as such don’t deserve mega multi year contracts that go significantly beyond that point which is unfortunate for guys that play RB since they’re usually coming up for their 2nd contract around age 26-27 or can be tagged up to that point if they were later round picks or UDFA that outperformed. I’m not sure how you fix it without breaking something else. I think eliminating the tag, for instance, would be to the detriment of smaller market teams and of the competitive balance of the league.

Teams do still value having a strong run game. I think that might be the underlying point flgatorsandjags is really making. GMs have just realized en masse that there are more cap efficient ways to build and maintain one rather than throw good money at a likely declining player.

---

You get paid for what you’re expected to do moving forward not for what you have already done.  GMs are playing the numbers which overwhelmingly support that human beings that play the RB position more often than not peak at age 27 or younger before their play starts to decline and as such don’t deserve mega multi year contracts that go significantly beyond that point which is unfortunate  for guys that play RB since they’re usually coming up for their 2nd contract around age 26-27 or can be tagged up to that point if they were later round picks or UDFA that outperformed.  I’m not sure how you fix it without breaking something else.  I think eliminating the tag, for instance, would be to the detriment of smaller market teams and of the competitive balance of the league.

Teams do still value having a strong run game.  I think that might be the underlying point flgatorsandjags is really making.  GMs have just realized en masse that there are more cap efficient ways to build and maintain one rather than throw good money at a likely declining player.

Well said

---

I think we need 7 more pages explaining in great detail how a position can be important but also devalued simultaneously.
Maybe someone will begin to understand the difference.


WR second contract salaries have increased by a healthy margin in recent years.
RB second contract salaries have not.  

One of them is "devalued"

Just go look at the history of the franchise tag salary for each position.

The RB tag # has hovered between 9mil and 11 mil for seven years. Stagnation is the trend here.
The WR tag number has risen from 12 mil to 19 mil in that same span. Keeping pace with the market and the teams' cap increases.

One of those is "devalued" -  Unworthy of being paid lucrative second contracts because ample replacements are readily available for less money.  The demand has been affected by a surplus of supply. 
Making the resource "less valuable." 
I'm trying to come up with a three syllable word that means something has become "less valuable." 
Any ideas? 




(devalued? )

---

I think we need 7 more pages explaining in great detail how a position can be important but also devalued simultaneously.
Maybe someone will begin to understand the difference.


WR second contract salaries have increased by a healthy margin in recent years.
RB second contract salaries have not.  

One of them is "devalued"

Just go look at the history of the franchise tag salary for each position.

The RB tag # has hovered between 9mil and 11 mil for seven years. Stagnation is the trend here.
The WR tag number has risen from 12 mil to 19 mil in that same span. Keeping pace with the market and the teams' cap increases.

One of those is "devalued" -  Unworthy of being paid lucrative second contracts because ample replacements are readily available for less money.  The demand has been affected by a surplus of supply. 
Making the resource "less valuable." 
I'm trying to come up with a three syllable word that means something has become "less valuable." 
Any ideas? 

Also try putting the word less in front?

less precious
less expensive
matter less
commoner
less central
less dominant
less critical
less crucial
less effective
less essential

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

It's interesting to see someone try to convince everyone else that all the negative facts around the RB position are actually positive.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's interesting to see someone try to convince everyone else that all the negative facts around the RB position are actually positive.

Absolutely this. 

Describe how it’s being devalued and say, “See?”

---

It's interesting to see someone try to convince everyone else that all the negative facts around the RB position are actually positive.

Its not positive for the RB's.  It just is what it is.  If they want to beat the trend, play at a high level for a longer period of time.

---