Jump to content

Arbitration for running backs


N4L

Recommended Posts

I think I have the solution to the repressed running back market. Everyone knows they have a short shelf life because they take a beating. The rookie wage scale has basically made it so teams can squeeze out the best years out of a running back and then not pay them later on when they are less effective. 

In baseball, you are under 'team control' for something like 5-6 years. The final years of your rookie deal both the player and the team make their case to an arbitrator, who then makes the final ruling on how much the player will get paid based on their perceived market value. 

I think this would be pretty fair for all sides to have binding arbitration after 2-3 years in the league. Guys like Zeke, Gordon, leveon etc wouldn't hold out

Thoughts? 

EDIT: I guess I wasn't clear, this would be for running backs on their rookie contracts ONLY. After a guy reaches free agency, they can sign whatever deal they want. 

Edited by N4L
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure you can just have different contract rules for a position. What would prevent teams from just listing them as receivers or full backs, and handing them the ball? If you based it on number of carries, why wouldn't they just limit carries and just replace them with swing passes?

 

Also, in arbitration years, baseball players are usually massively underpaid. Oh and baseball has no salary cap, so it's probably not the best example. 

Edited by Slateman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL already gives bonuses to players who exceed their comp. And teams just dont need RBs like other positions... so the market system is working. 

I dont see anyone fighting for kickers pay. Yet they have about the same contribution to teams winning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Slateman said:

Not sure you can just have different contract rules for a position. What would prevent teams from just listing them as receivers or full backs, and handing them the ball? If you based it on number of carries, why wouldn't they just limit carries and just replace them with swing passes?

Teams already do this for Franchise tag figures, but I dont believe any coach in their right mind would change the way they call plays to prevent a player from being classified as a running back. I dont think it will be a problem defining what a running back is. I think its pretty clear who is a running back and who isnt a running back. Would be very easy to have an 'independent 3rd party' make the determination on whether someone is a running back or not. 

19 hours ago, Slateman said:

Also, in arbitration years, baseball players are usually massively underpaid. Oh and baseball has no salary cap, so it's probably not the best example.

 Running backs are massively underpaid, hence the point of this thread. By the time these guys hit FA, teams dont want to pay them adequately for their services because A) their bodies start to wear down as they get older, so teams are fearful of bad contracts and B) because they can just draft some rookie and pay him 500k. That is what has deflated the RB market, its not because the position has no value, like @Matts4313 would have you believe (what a dunce, am I right?). Its why there needs to be a special rule for this position. 

As far as the Salary Cap goes, there are ways to work around that. One idea I had would just to make that player count against the cap for amount they would have made in arbitration, then allow the difference between those two numbers be allocated/prorated over a few years to spread it out. Another idea is that for 4 year contracts, the first two years are the current rookie wage scale, then arbitration, then the player makes the same thing for the next 2 years, but only year 4 counts against the cap. 

I am sure they could find a way to have it make sense from a salary cap perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, N4L said:

Teams already do this for Franchise tag figures, but I dont believe any coach in their right mind would change the way they call plays to prevent a player from being classified as a running back. I dont think it will be a problem defining what a running back is. I think its pretty clear who is a running back and who isnt a running back. Would be very easy to have an 'independent 3rd party' make the determination on whether someone is a running back or not. 

 Running backs are massively underpaid, hence the point of this thread. By the time these guys hit FA, teams dont want to pay them adequately for their services because A) their bodies start to wear down as they get older, so teams are fearful of bad contracts and B) because they can just draft some rookie and pay him 500k. That is what has deflated the RB market, its not because the position has no value, like @Matts4313 would have you believe (what a dunce, am I right?). Its why there needs to be a special rule for this position. 

As far as the Salary Cap goes, there are ways to work around that. One idea I had would just to make that player count against the cap for amount they would have made in arbitration, then allow the difference between those two numbers be allocated/prorated over a few years to spread it out. Another idea is that for 4 year contracts, the first two years are the current rookie wage scale, then arbitration, then the player makes the same thing for the next 2 years, but only year 4 counts against the cap. 

I am sure they could find a way to have it make sense from a salary cap perspective. 

You would have a  massive problem of team's defining a running back if you had to pay them more for listing them as a "running back." 

Running backs are massively replaceable, that's why they're underpaid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Slateman said:

You would have a  massive problem of team's defining a running back if you had to pay them more for listing them as a "running back." 

Running backs are massively replaceable, that's why they're underpaid. 

When we say "running backs are massively replaceable", which RBs are we referring to?  I would agree that RBs like Lamar Miller are easily replaceable.

In the entire history of the NFL, only 12 RBs have ran for more rushing yards in their first 3 years than Zeke.  And that is despite the fact Elliott missed multiple games in his sophomore campaign.  Among every RB who had at least 800 carries in their first 3 years, only 3 (Edge, Campbell, Dickerson) averaged more YPG and only 8 backs averaged a higher yards per carry.  Only 14 ran for more rushing yards.

So when we say RBs are easily replaceable, are we referring to all RBs, Zeke included?  Or are we talking about the middle of the pack backs?  I find it hard to believe Ezekiel Elliott's production can be easily duplicated by just any RB.  There is a reason these guys go in the top 10.

Can you provide multiple examples of HOF-level RBs being easily replaced by average backs, like you seem to be suggesting could happen with Zeke?  A lot of people are quick to use Conner/Bell to prove their point, but I'd argue Conner is extremely talented - there is a reason, after everything that happened, he still went in the 3rd round.  Even if I were to concede he's average, what other examples are there?  Chargers had to commit a 1st round pick to try and replace LDT, and Gordon has still never come close to his kind of success.  Lions haven't found anyone who is even close to Barry.  It took the Cowboys forever to get Emmitt like production again from a RB (Murray, an extremely talented but injury prone BR).  

RBs being easily replaceable is just as true as an offensive lineman being easily replaceable, if we're just referring to guys who are middle to below average at their position.  The elite guys at any position are not being easily replaced unless you are committing high capital.

It's a shame RBs get the rep that they do on this forum.  It's mind-boggling.  I can understand why people are hesitant to commit big money to them.  They are probably more prone to injuries than any other position.  There is evidence that they don't last very long past 30, although I think people overreact to that a tad too much (we're still talking like 7-8 years in the NFL before they are 30; basing who you draft on 8 years ahead of time is dumb).  But this doesn't mean the great RBs aren't still great or don't make a difference.  People point out great RBs on bad teams, but will completely ignore there are countless great pass rushers or corners on bad teams too.  It's a ridiculous double standard.  The fact of the matter is, after QB it doesn't matter how your team is structured as long as it's good.  You can have a good running game, bad pass rush, great pass defense, average run defense.  Or a bad running game, great pass rush, average pass defense, good run defense.  Or 50 other combinations.

Edited by iknowcool
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

When we say "running backs are massively replaceable", which RBs are we referring to?  I would agree that RBs like Lamar Miller are easily replaceable.

In the entire history of the NFL, only 12 RBs have ran for more rushing yards in their first 3 years than Zeke.  And that is despite the fact Elliott missed multiple games in his sophomore campaign.  Among every RB who had at least 800 carries in their first 3 years, only 3 (Edge, Campbell, Dickerson) averaged more YPG and only 8 backs averaged a higher yards per carry.  Only 14 ran for more rushing yards.

So when we say RBs are easily replaceable, are we referring to all RBs, Zeke included?  Or are we talking about the middle of the pack backs?  I find it hard to believe Ezekiel Elliott's production can be easily duplicated by just any RB.  There is a reason these guys go in the top 10.

Can you provide multiple examples of HOF-level RBs being easily replaced by average backs, like you seem to be suggesting could happen with Zeke?  A lot of people are quick to use Conner/Bell to prove their point, but I'd argue Conner is extremely talented - there is a reason, after everything that happened, he still went in the 3rd round.  Even if I were to concede he's average, what other examples are there?  Chargers had to commit a 1st round pick to try and replace LDT, and Gordon has still never come close to his kind of success.  Lions haven't found anyone who is even close to Barry.  It took the Cowboys forever to get Emmitt like production again from a RB (Murray, an extremely talented but injury prone BR).  

RBs being easily replaceable is just as true as an offensive lineman being easily replaceable, if we're just referring to guys who are middle to below average at their position. 

The reason why they are replaceable is because this position is very deep and several teams have had success in the past with a RB by committee at this position

Of course, RBs like Marshall Faulk, Barry Sanders, Ladainian Tomlinson,etc were not replaceable, but they are legendary players ... I do not know if there is a RB of this caliber right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Steelersfan43 said:

The reason why they are replaceable is because this position is very deep and several teams have had success in the past with a RB by committee at this position

Of course, RBs like Marshall Faulk, Barry Sanders, Ladainian Tomlinson,etc were not replaceable, but they are legendary players ... I do not know if there is a RB of this caliber right now.

Also, running backs without a quality quarterback aren't going to carry an offense anyway. :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iknowcool said:

When we say "running backs are massively replaceable", which RBs are we referring to?  I would agree that RBs like Lamar Miller are easily replaceable.

In the entire history of the NFL, only 12 RBs have ran for more rushing yards in their first 3 years than Zeke.  And that is despite the fact Elliott missed multiple games in his sophomore campaign.  Among every RB who had at least 800 carries in their first 3 years, only 3 (Edge, Campbell, Dickerson) averaged more YPG and only 8 backs averaged a higher yards per carry.  Only 14 ran for more rushing yards.

So when we say RBs are easily replaceable, are we referring to all RBs, Zeke included?  Or are we talking about the middle of the pack backs?  I find it hard to believe Ezekiel Elliott's production can be easily duplicated by just any RB.  There is a reason these guys go in the top 10.

Can you provide multiple examples of HOF-level RBs being easily replaced by average backs, like you seem to be suggesting could happen with Zeke?  A lot of people are quick to use Conner/Bell to prove their point, but I'd argue Conner is extremely talented - there is a reason, after everything that happened, he still went in the 3rd round.  Even if I were to concede he's average, what other examples are there?  Chargers had to commit a 1st round pick to try and replace LDT, and Gordon has still never come close to his kind of success.  Lions haven't found anyone who is even close to Barry.  It took the Cowboys forever to get Emmitt like production again from a RB (Murray, an extremely talented but injury prone BR).  

RBs being easily replaceable is just as true as an offensive lineman being easily replaceable, if we're just referring to guys who are middle to below average at their position.  The elite guys at any position are not being easily replaced unless you are committing high capital.

It's a shame RBs get the rep that they do on this forum.  It's mind-boggling.  I can understand why people are hesitant to commit big money to them.  They are probably more prone to injuries than any other position.  There is evidence that they don't last very long past 30, although I think people overreact to that a tad too much (we're still talking like 7-8 years in the NFL before they are 30; basing who you draft on 8 years ahead of time is dumb).  But this doesn't mean the great RBs aren't still great or don't make a difference.  People point out great RBs on bad teams, but will completely ignore there are countless great pass rushers or corners on bad teams too.  It's a ridiculous double standard.  The fact of the matter is, after QB it doesn't matter how your team is structured as long as it's good.  You can have a good running game, bad pass rush, great pass defense, average run defense.  Or a bad running game, great pass rush, average pass defense, good run defense.  Or 50 other combinations.

If rushing was all that mattered, okay. You're completely disregarding how offenses are utilizing RBs in the short passing game. 

Also, in 2017, Elliot only played 10 games. Alfred Morris started five of the remaining six games, averaging 4.3 yards per carry (Elliot averaged 4.1 that season). Pittsburg was able to replace Bell this past season. New Orleans seems to have no problem churning out similar production to Elliot with their committees. 

In those three years, Elliot has not lead NFL RBs in all purpose yards. The days of the bruising back are over. It's a passing league and it's going to be for a long time. One-dimensional players like Elliot are simply not as valuable as they once were and their production can be replaced, usually by a committee. And given how easy it is for a RB to get hurt because of how much bigger and faster defensive players are getting, it would be unwise to invest heavily in a running back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steelersfan43 said:

The reason why they are replaceable is because this position is very deep and several teams have had success in the past with a RB by committee at this position

Of course, RBs like Marshall Faulk, Barry Sanders, Ladainian Tomlinson,etc were not replaceable, but they are legendary players ... I do not know if there is a RB of this caliber right now.

Name a RB the caliber of Ezekiel Elliott that has been easily replaced by an average RB.

Do you think Conner is an average RB?

Edited by iknowcool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Slateman said:

If rushing was all that mattered, okay. You're completely disregarding how offenses are utilizing RBs in the short passing game. 

How am I disregarding that?  

Would it make a difference to you if I also pointed out that Zeke is 12th all-time in yards from scrimmage in a RBs first 3 years?  It doesn't matter if I'm referring to rushing yards, YFS, touchdowns, etc. - Zeke's production stacks up with the best of 'em.  

I don't know how anyone could look at Zeke's production and not think "legendary".  He's on track for a Hall of Fame career.  Maybe he's not on the caliber of Faulk, Sanders, or LDT, but we're overrating the past if we don't consider Zeke to be on pace to be considered a legendary player by the end of his career.

Also, it isn't like Alfred Morris is a bum.  He had 3 consecutive 1,000 yard seasons in Washington and was only 2 years removed from his last one when he filled in for Elliott.  Not to mention that's still a relatively small sample size.  

I'll give you Conner, if you believe Conner to be an average RB.  Can you name other situations where great RBs were easily replaced for a season (not just a 4-5 game stretch, of which case this would apply to literally every position) by average to below average runners?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PapaShogun said:

Also, running backs without a quality quarterback aren't going to carry an offense anyway. :)

... and wide receivers without a quality quarterback aren't going to carry an offense either.  In fact, they would be hindered even more by inadequate quarterback play.

Offensive lineman and tight ends aren't going to carry an offense either.  Are they not of importance either?

Another example of RBs being held to a ridiculously different standard.  If RBs can't carry an offense, it's because they aren't important.  If WRs can't carry an offense, well... nothing is said for reasons?  

On top of that, if you were to research drafts of the last 10 years, you would likely find it's been easier to find good WRs in the mid-tier rounds than it has been to find good RBs.  And yet, nobody ever discusses not drafting a WR in the 1st round.  

It's just bad logic.

Edited by iknowcool
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...