Jump to content

Arbitration for running backs


N4L

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, N4L said:

Yeah, that's why I didn't suggest a specific criteria for what constitutes a RB. I think its better if you just have a 'common sense' rule where an independent 3rd party makes that determination. 

Lets be real, its pretty freaking obvious who are running backs and who are not. Its not WR/TE or OLB/DE where the roles are muddied together/different in different schemes. 

You cant have a "common sense" rule. It has to be definable because it would be part of the CBA.

What if I line up my "running back" in the slot 40 times a game and toss him a little screen,and he averages 4.8 yards per catch? What if I do the exact same thing but the guy catching it wears number 87?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, N4L said:

Yeah, that's why I didn't suggest a specific criteria for what constitutes a RB. I think its better if you just have a 'common sense' rule where an independent 3rd party makes that determination. 

Lets be real, its pretty freaking obvious who are running backs and who are not. Its not WR/TE or OLB/DE where the roles are muddied together/different in different schemes. 

The teams could say that this player is a Fullback!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

 

Supporting facts for the above statements:

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

Those are not supporting facts in regard to the question asked.  How does any of that prove running backs and kickers are of the same value?  

So would you say the best running back of all-time offered the same value to his team as the best kicker of all-time?  You would rather pay Justin Tucker (or whoever you consider to be the best kicker ever) $5m instead of paying Barry Sanders $10m?

Or when you say running backs, are you just talking about the average ones?  I cannot possibly believe you think guys like Zeke, Barkley, Gurley, etc. offer the same value to a team as a kicker.  

Are you then suggesting it is easier to replace someone like Saquon Barkley vs replacing Justin Tucker?

Do you have any data that also shows why linebackers increase your win % more than a RB?  Or that shows how a left tackle increases your win % than a RB?  You've posted your facts before, which I suppose show there isn't a high correlation between running success and winning.  However, using that as a supporting reason to show "RBs aren't important" relative to other positions isn't really doable unless you also have facts that show a high correlation between the success of a linebacker and winning, for example.  Do you have any of that?  Or because you see that one aspect of the game does not ensure team success, you assume it means RBs are less important than other positions?

Edited by iknowcool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Slateman said:

What's the difference between Barkley and Alvin Kamara? Is Barkley worth a 700% cap hit over Kamara. Right now he is. When Barkley wants 20+ million a year, what about then? Why pay that when you can get 80% of the production at 10% of the price? 

You said the difference between average and great at the position is minor.  Explain how Kamara fits into this comparison, unless you are suggesting he is average?

Second, why pay any player when you can get 80% of the production at 10% of the price?  How is this exclusively a RB problem?  You can opt not to pay any position big bucks in hope you can find a player with 80% of the production at 10% of the price.

Also, you do realize Kamara will want a new contract too... right?  So do you just keep getting rid of great RBs in hope you will find another one in the mid-rounds?

 

Seriously, how often do you think guys like Alvin Kamara are found in the mid rounds?  Some of you try to make it seem like finding a stud like Kamara in the 3rd or 4th round is a common occurrence.  If you would actually look at the list of RBs taking in the mid-rounds in the last 8 years, you would see this is not the case.  You are FAR more likely to draft a middling RB who lasts no more than 4 seasons as a back-up than to find an All-Pro like Kamara.

And any time I ask anyone to do so, prove that above average RBs are found at a far higher clip than above average players at other positions in the mid-rounds, nobody does so.  Which is cool, because it takes time, but then it makes it hard to take the argument seriously when it's not really grounded in reality.  

Edited by iknowcool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

 

I watched this video, waiting for them to explain how RBs are easily replaceable.  Not only did they fail to do so, they claimed Gurley didn't have any success until he found a scheme and an offensive line to help him out.  

Gurley ran for 1106 yards on 4.8 YPC and 10 TDs as a rookie.

So yeah.  I hate the suggestion that RBs are so much more reliable on the team around them than other positions.  I guess it is true to an extent, especially for the average/above average guys, but a great RB is more often than not going to be great regardless.  They may have a down season there and now (like literally any other position), but the best ones always rise to the top.  

Hell, if anything, the dude on the left was saying things that showed how the RB position isn't as replaceable as some of you are implying.  Plenty of back-up RBs play well and then just aren't good starters.

LIS, people likely only think RB is so easily replaceable because everyone, including the casual fan, can look at a RBs stats and deduce if they are at least solid.   You can't do the same thing for offensive lineman, corners, etc. as easily.  Plenty of above average guys at those positions are found in the mid-rounds, or at least guys who are about the same as some of the average RBs. 

So does anyone have any data that shows above average/good RBs being found far more consistently in the mid-rounds than other positions, such as linebacker, cornerbacks, etc.?  Does anyone have any data from any website that proves this to be true?  

Edited by iknowcool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iknowcool said:

I watched this video, waiting for them to explain how RBs are easily replaceable.  Not only did they fail to do so, they claimed Gurley didn't have any success until he found a scheme and an offensive line to help him out.  

Gurley ran for 1106 yards on 4.8 YPC and 10 TDs as a rookie.

So yeah.  I hate the suggestion that RBs are so much more reliable on the team around them than other positions.  I guess it is true to an extent, especially for the average/above average guys, but a great RB is more often than not going to be great regardless.  They may have a down season there and now (like literally any other position), but the best ones always rise to the top.  

Hell, if anything, the dude on the left was saying things that showed how the RB position isn't as replaceable as some of you are implying.  Plenty of back-up RBs play well and then just aren't good starters.

LIS, people likely only think RB is so easily replaceable because everyone, including the casual fan, can look at a RBs stats and deduce if they are at least solid.   You can't do the same thing for offensive lineman, corners, etc. as easily.  Plenty of above average guys at those positions are found in the mid-rounds, or at least guys who are about the same as some of the average RBs. 

So does anyone have any data that shows above average/good RBs being found far more consistently in the mid-rounds than other positions, such as linebacker, cornerbacks, etc.?  Does anyone have any data from any website that proves this to be true?  

There is actually a very good article that addresses all of your questions most probably. 

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-are-nfl-running-backs-easily-replaceable-the-story-of-the-2018-nfl-season

But you need PFF's subscription service to continue reading. If my free trial had not run out I'd share some of the points with you. When it's up again, if you remember, you can look for yourself. Unfortunately, I don't have as much time on my hands as others to go back and forth about it. 

Edited by PapaShogun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, iknowcool said:

You said the difference between average and great at the position is minor.  Explain how Kamara fits into this comparison, unless you are suggesting he is average?

Second, why pay any player when you can get 80% of the production at 10% of the price?  How is this exclusively a RB problem?  You can opt not to pay any position big bucks in hope you can find a player with 80% of the production at 10% of the price.

Also, you do realize Kamara will want a new contract too... right?  So do you just keep getting rid of great RBs in hope you will find another one in the mid-rounds?

 

Seriously, how often do you think guys like Alvin Kamara are found in the mid rounds?  Some of you try to make it seem like finding a stud like Kamara in the 3rd or 4th round is a common occurrence.  If you would actually look at the list of RBs taking in the mid-rounds in the last 8 years, you would see this is not the case.  You are FAR more likely to draft a middling RB who lasts no more than 4 seasons as a back-up than to find an All-Pro like Kamara.

And any time I ask anyone to do so, prove that above average RBs are found at a far higher clip than above average players at other positions in the mid-rounds, nobody does so.  Which is cool, because it takes time, but then it makes it hard to take the argument seriously when it's not really grounded in reality.  

Every draft there is an Alvin Kamera.

 

The running back position is now the most replaceable/schemable position in football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, iknowcool said:

Those are not supporting facts in regard to the question asked.  How does any of that prove running backs and kickers are of the same value?

That was a tongue in cheek comment because rushing production has almost no correlation to winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some people really struggle with RBs because there is no position in football (maybe not even QB) where their direct contribution is so visually evident and because their contributions to the game are most directly reflected in individual statistics. There value jumps off the screen in a way that only maybe QBs do as consistently (and then its often scheme related). Its so obvious that its hard to reconcile with the more intangible play of other positions in terms of valuation. This is a primary reason the dogma of rushing the ball was so prevalent for so long in football. And because people believe in fairness, we want to compensate RBs for playing one of the most physically punishing positions in sports. This is why people don't equally lament kickers/punters for not making big money. I'm all for players maximizing their value but lets not forget that these guys are still making multiple millions of dollars per year. It may feel bad relative to their peers at other positions but its not like they are only making the veteran minimum.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Teen Girl Squad said:

I think some people really struggle with RBs because there is no position in football (maybe not even QB) where their direct contribution is so visually evident and because their contributions to the game are most directly reflected in individual statistics. There value jumps off the screen in a way that only maybe QBs do as consistently (and then its often scheme related). Its so obvious that its hard to reconcile with the more intangible play of other positions in terms of valuation. This is a primary reason the dogma of rushing the ball was so prevalent for so long in football. And because people believe in fairness, we want to compensate RBs for playing one of the most physically punishing positions in sports. This is why people don't equally lament kickers/punters for not making big money. I'm all for players maximizing their value but lets not forget that these guys are still making multiple millions of dollars per year. It may feel bad relative to their peers at other positions but its not like they are only making the veteran minimum.

This is a very solid point. People love RBs. The become emotionally attached to them. There is a positive experience most times they touch the ball, which creates an emotional bond to them. 

 

But there is 25 years worth of data to prove their impact on wins is negligible and easily replaceable. If people used the logical side of their brain, they would understand why NFL teams dont want to pay these guys.... They arent worth it long term. 

Edited by Matts4313
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2019 at 8:03 AM, N4L said:

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. 

 

The whole premise of this thread is flawed.  The rookie wage scale makes it such that there are three rookies in the top-10 AAVs for runningbacks.  This is not something you see at other position groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2019 at 2:43 PM, Matts4313 said:

This is a very solid point. People love RBs. The become emotionally attached to them. There is a positive experience most times they touch the ball, which creates an emotional bond to them. 

 

But there is 25 years worth of data to prove their impact on wins is negligible and easily replaceable. If people used the logical side of their brain, they would understand why NFL teams dont want to pay these guys.... They arent worth it long term. 

I honestly think if you’d gone about your “running game is irrelevant” thread this way, you would have had more people agreeing with your perspective to an extent.  This seems a much more objective analysis of the situation on your part tbh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

I honestly think if you’d gone about your “running game is irrelevant” thread this way, you would have had more people agreeing with your perspective to an extent.  This seems a much more objective analysis of the situation on your part tbh

Sometimes I just like to troll though. Its fun to be the heel. 

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...