Arbitration for running backs

[TecmoSuperJoe]

5 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

... 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.  

Wide receivers and offensive linemen aren't dinosaurs by the age of 30.

[Steelersfan43]

15 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

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?

Maybe not average, but if this RB is above average, the team can survive

[iknowcool]

Just now, PapaShogun said:

Wide receivers and offensive linemen aren't dinosaurs by the age of 30.

That has nothing to do with what you quoted, what you said, or my response though. 

You said, "running backs without a quality quarterback aren't going to carry an offense anyway."  How does this not also apply to WRs and OL?  And if it does, then how does the fact RBs can't make them less important?  

If the discussion is "should RBs get big money", then it's worth bringing up that a lot of RBs don't do well past 30.  But we were talking about the importance and impact of a great RB on the field.  I don't see how them not being able to carry an offense without a good QB is a solid argument for them not being as important as say, a WR. 

Why do you think WRs are more important and beyond age, are there reasons why you would draft one in the first round but not a RB?  Or is it strictly the 30 year old benchmark that makes the difference?  If so, why is something that won't matter until 8 years down the road (I'd reckon most RBs enter the league by 22) so relevant to your decision on who to draft?  For example, look at the 49ers roster 8 years ago and look at it now.  Why would a RB turning 30 in 2019, if they are great on the level of Zeke, Barkley, Gurley, etc., impact your decision to draft them in 2011?  

[iknowcool]

7 minutes ago, Steelersfan43 said:

Maybe not average, but if this RB is above average, the team can survive

So do you think a team could not survive with an above average pass rusher, cornerback, wide receiver, etc?

Would you say every team who made the playoffs last year had an elite pass rusher?  

Edited August 14, 2019 by iknowcool

[TecmoSuperJoe]

12 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

That has nothing to do with what you quoted, what you said, or my response though. 

You said, "running backs without a quality quarterback aren't going to carry an offense anyway."  How does this not also apply to WRs and OL?  And if it does, then how does the fact RBs can't make them less important?  

If the discussion is "should RBs get big money", then it's worth bringing up that a lot of RBs don't do well past 30.  But we were talking about the importance and impact of a great RB on the field.  I don't see how them not being able to carry an offense without a good QB is a solid argument for them not being as important as say, a WR. 

Why do you think WRs are more important and beyond age, are there reasons why you would draft one in the first round but not a RB?  Or is it strictly the 30 year old benchmark that makes the difference?  If so, why is something that won't matter until 8 years down the road (I'd reckon most RBs enter the league by 22) so relevant to your decision on who to draft?  For example, look at the 49ers roster 8 years ago and look at it now.  Why would a RB turning 30 in 2019, if they are great on the level of Zeke, Barkley, Gurley, etc., impact your decision to draft them in 2011?  

The NFL has evolved into a passing league, and the touches receivers get are almost exclusively via the pass game of course. A team that doesn't have a great running back doesn't make an offense turn to dirt. A great runner doesn't help a quarterback throwing the ball fron point A to B easier, like a receiver with hops or separation does. As we've seen over the years with guys like Brady, Brees, Rodgers, if they don't have even a decent runner they still play lights out. Remember when the Chiefs lost Hunt and it didn't matter?

Offensive line play is essentially your difference other than your QB having arm talent in determining how far you go. Like the Eagles. Offensive line play around the league has been lackluster for a while, but the teams that still have great line play are still going places. Barkley had a sensational year for the Giants. They won 5 games. How many teams make it to the Super Bowl with bad offensive line play? How many make it with running backs no one remembers?

 

Oh yeah, and having a short shelf life is icing on the cake.

Edited August 14, 2019 by PapaShogun

[iknowcool]

18 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

 A team that doesn't have a great running back doesn't make an offense turn to dirt. 

So do you believe a team without a great wide receiver would lead to an offense becoming dirt?  Do you think losing a left tackle would lead to an offense becoming dirt, and if so is there a precedent you could name? 

If you don't believe that, then this can't be used against the RB position.

No one player or position is going to make the difference between a great offense and it becoming dirt, sans QB.

Quote

As we've seen over the years with guys like Brady, Brees, Rodgers, if they don't have even a decent runner they still play lights out. Remember when the Chiefs lost Hunt and it didn't matter?

We have also seen them play lights out without good receivers either.  Remember when Brady lost Moss and it didn't matter?  Or when Brees lost Colston?  

Quote

Offensive line play is essentially your difference other than your QB having arm talent in determining how far you go. Offensive line play around the league has been lackluster for a while, but the teams that still have great line play are still going places. Barkley had a sensational year for the Giants. They won 5 games. 

So do you think every team with a good offensive line made the playoffs last year?  Do you think every team that made the playoffs last year had a good offensive line (ahem, Texans)?

Odell Beckham had a sensational sophomore season.  Giants won 6 games.  Does that now mean WR isn't important?

Jared Allen once recorded a 22 sack season for a 3-13 team.  Does that mean pass rusher isn't important?  Is a position having a great year for a bad team thus mean that position isn't important?  That seems to be what you are implying.  Would you mind explaining how those situations, great players having great years for bad teams, is somehow different than Barkley having a great year for a bad team?  What am I supposed to take from Barkley's Giants winning 5 games that I wouldn't take from Allen's Vikings winning 3 games?

EDIT - Since we were talking about WRs vs RBs:

Moss had a great season in 2002, in the midst of his prime, for a 6-10 team

C. Johnson was in the argument for best wide receiver in the game despite playing for a team who won like 2 or 3 games in 2 years
 

Edited August 14, 2019 by iknowcool

[Gmen]

3 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Offensive line play is essentially your difference other than your QB having arm talent in determining how far you go. Offensive line play around the league has been lackluster for a while, but the teams that still have great line play are still going places. Barkley had a sensational year for the Giants. They won 5 games. 

The Giants won only 5 games because the defense sucked. The Giants scored more points than anyone in the NFCE last year - Despite having one of the worst offensive lines in the league. That’s a testament to the greatness of Saquon. But he doesn’t belong in this conversation because he’s not your ordinary workhorse running back. He’s a playmaker. He made chicken salad out of chicken **** on a routine basis. As great as he is, no one player makes a team. Not even a quarterback. 

[Steelersfan43]

26 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

So do you think a team could not survive with an above average pass rusher, cornerback, wide receiver, etc?

Would you say every team who made the playoffs last year had an elite pass rusher?  

It's just that it's easier to find an above average RB compared to other position

[Slateman]

1 hour ago, iknowcool said:

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?

Morris and Conner are my point. They were the replacements. Chris Carson, LeSean McCoy, Adrian Peterson, Frank Gore, ect. All of these guys were found later in the draft or off the free agency pile. And teams are going to be constantly rotating out backs. New Orleans has gotten more production out of their two running backs the last two years than Dallas has. 

Is "legendary" production from a running back actually that important in today's NFL? It's not. That NFL is gone and it's probably never coming back. 

[Slateman]

33 minutes ago, Steelersfan43 said:

It's just that it's easier to find an above average RB compared to other position

Also, the difference between above average and great at the RB position is minor. You want to claim Elliot is HoF level already? Give him an average offensive line and watch his production drop off. 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

I think the issue you’ll have(like what people said in my idea thread) is you can’t make it just 1 position

[JaguarCrazy2832]

3 minutes ago, Slateman said:

Also, the difference between above average and great at the RB position is minor. You want to claim Elliot is HoF level already? Give him an average offensive line and watch his production drop off. 

You say that but if he always has one he’ll make it. No one knocked Smith when he played behind a beast OL in big D

[Steelersfan43]

1 minute ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

You say that but if he always has one he’ll make it. No one knocked Smith when he played behind a beast OL in big D

When Emmitt Smith is compared to the all-time great like Barry Sanders, many say that the O-line has helped Smith a lot

At the same time, his 1993 season was huge for his legacy! (Cowboys started 0-2 without him and after Dallas only lost 2 other games and Smith won the MVP regular season and Super Bowl MVP)

But the NFL has changed a lot since then too

[iknowcool]

27 minutes ago, Slateman said:

Morris and Conner are my point. They were the replacements. Chris Carson, LeSean McCoy, Adrian Peterson, Frank Gore, ect. All of these guys were found later in the draft or off the free agency pile.

So above average players at other positions aren't also found off the free agency pile or later in the draft?

Do you have any evidence that proves above average RBs are found in the mid rounders at a far greater % than wide receivers or linebackers, for example?

I believe that fans are under the illusion that RBs are easier to find simply because it's easier to snuff out a talented RB from the middle of the draft because of numbers.  However, I've went back 5-7 drafts and found that the idea that great backs being found consistently in the middle rounds is a myth.  I can go dig up the thread and repost if you would like.

I have never seen anyone post any data that proves above average RBs are found easier than above average players at other positions.  At this point, I'm convinced people just take it at face value.  And if that isn't the case, then where is the proof?  

Edited August 14, 2019 by iknowcool

[iknowcool]

30 minutes ago, Slateman said:

Also, the difference between above average and great at the RB position is minor. You want to claim Elliot is HoF level already? Give him an average offensive line and watch his production drop off. 

You want to claim Julio Jones is HoF level already?  Give him an average quarterback and watch his production drop off.

See, anyone can say literally unprovable statements and act as if it is a fact.  Or that it even proves anything. 

Do you think RB is the only other position partially dependent on the guys around him?

Side-note, are you suggesting Zeke isn't HOF level at his current pace?  If so, that is ludicrous.

Edited August 14, 2019 by iknowcool