Arbitration for running backs

[iknowcool]

Also, "the difference between above average and great at the RB position is minor."  

Do you seriously believe the difference between 2018 Saquon Barkley and 2018 Jordan Howard is minor?  "Yeah, Barkley is good, but he's barely better than Jordan Howard!"  

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by iknowcool

[tom cody]

Given the short shelf life for these players I can't see them getting any special type of arbitration. To much risk now with that position. 

[Matts4313]

6 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. 

 

5 hours ago, iknowcool said:

How do you figure?

Supporting facts for the above statements:

Quote

 From 1998 through 2017, only 39 of 252 playoff teams allowed more yards per pass attempt than they gained. This implies that 84.5% of playoff teams had a positive pass efficiency.

Super Bowl champions excelled in pass efficiency as well, as 15 of the 21 champions had pass efficiencies of a yard per attempt or more.

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

However, the insignificance of rushing in the NFL might surprise you.

From 1997 through 2017, only 57.5% of playoff teams (145 of 252) had a positive team rush efficiency. The visual of rush efficiency for playoff teams shows a random scatter of points with both positive and negative values. A strong run game or stout rush defense has little effect in helping an NFL team win enough games to make the playoffs.

https://thepowerrank.com/2018/09/24/the-surprising-truth-about-passing-and-rushing-in-the-nfl/

Quote

Conclusion

To review, here are our three main findings:

1) It is not the case that long drives disproportionately have greater rush/pass ratios.
2) Rush attempts that come in situations where running the ball is better than passing the ball in terms of extending drives are extremely rare.
3) There is not strong carryover between rushing success in short-yardage situations and rushing success in other situations.

Justifying an investment in the run game by saying it will help extend drives is misguided. If you want to get first downs, throw the ball (unless it's a short-yardage situation).

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/long-drives-and-running-game

Quote

After measuring this every way I could think if, it appears that the conventional wisdom that running is necessary for play-action passes to be effective should be questioned

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing

Quote

So what does this mean?  First, QB play is extremely important to winning games. Second, there is very little to show that a team’s success in the running game influences QB play. And if running doesn’t help you pass, then running does very little to help you win. The conventional wisdom that teams should establish the running game or maintain some kind run/pass balance does not appear to be supported by evidence.  Which isn’t to say that teams shouldn’t run. Rushing is helpful in goal line situations and in running out the clock at the end of the game.

http://www.hawkblogger.com/2017/09/relationship-passing-rushing.html

Quote

What does make the formula predictive? Using net yards per attempt — which deducts sacks from a passer’s production — is the simplest and best way to predict future performance. That’s why when looking at which quarterback will perform the best in the future, NY/A is my favorite statistic. When analyzing past quarterbacks, I prefer Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt, which gives a 45-yard penalty for interceptions and a 20-yard bonus for touchdowns. That’s more useful as an explanatory statistic than NY/A, but is not as helpful in predicting the future.

http://www.hawkblogger.com/2017/09/relationship-passing-rushing.html

Quote

The actual correlation coefficient of ANY/A differential to offensive point differential is a pretty awesome 0.83 through 4 weeks.

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2013/10/introducing-anya-differential.html

Quote

I measured the correlation coefficient between winning percentage and Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt in 2017; it was 0.71, which indicates a very strong positive relationship. This is what you would expect: as ANY/A increases, so does winning percentage. Last year, the Saints, Patriots, Chargers, Rams, and Chiefs were the top 5 teams in ANY/A, and they combined for 54 wins and a 0.675 winning percentage. The bottom 5 teams in ANY/A? Cleveland, Denver, Green Bay, Baltimore, and Miami, who combined for just 26 wins and a 0.325 winning percentage.

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

 Another would be that in the modern game, rushing yards are just not that important: teams can move the chains and drain the clock with the short passing game

http://www.footballperspective.com/any-a-rushing-yards-and-winning-percentage/

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

Quote

that rushing is not nearly as important to winning in the NFL as passing. But rushing is still a part of the game, and situational running is still critical.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ezekiel-elliott-is-not-worth-the-money-he-wants/

 

[N4L]

3 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

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

Which is exactly why RBs need to be compensated fairly for their production earlier in their careers. 

The arbitration idea is to find middle ground. It doesn't just automatically reward rookie running backs, but it does compensate guys who are actually productive

[Slateman]

 

1 hour ago, iknowcool said:

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.

He is. I'm saying Zeke as a HoF level RB vs a good one isn't worth breaking the bank over. I'm saying if you try and implement this arbitration system, teams will simply stop offering contracts to guys after two or three years. 

 

1 hour ago, iknowcool said:

Also, "the difference between above average and great at the RB position is minor."  

Do you seriously believe the difference between 2018 Saquon Barkley and 2018 Jordan Howard is minor?  "Yeah, Barkley is good, but he's barely better than Jordan Howard!"  

 

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? 

16 minutes ago, N4L said:

Which is exactly why RBs need to be compensated fairly for their production earlier in their careers. 

The arbitration idea is to find middle ground. It doesn't just automatically reward rookie running backs, but it does compensate guys who are actually productive

I'll repeat myself: They would stop offering contracts. No one is going to pay big time money for a running back in today's environment unless that RB is truly special. 

 

 

 

 

[Slateman]

2 hours 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

Lots of us knocked Smith. Lots of us call bullcrap when everyone wanted to anoint him as the greatest ever. You just can't hear us because you're too busy watching Joe Buck and Stephen A Smith. 

Your average college RB would have averaged 1200 yards behind that line. 

[Steelersfan43]

1 minute ago, Slateman said:

 

He is. I'm saying Zeke as a HoF level RB vs a good one isn't worth breaking the bank over. I'm saying if you try and implement this arbitration system, teams will simply stop offering contracts to guys after two or three years. 

 

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? 

I'll repeat myself: They would stop offering contracts. No one is going to pay big time money for a running back in today's environment unless that RB is truly special. 

 

 

 

 

That's the point and this is one of the big reasons why Bell has not reset the RB market on the open market .... He was not able to beat Gurley and the Jets were the only team that was interested in giving close of the contract that Bell had

This position is much easier to have a very good production than the position as the pass rusher or other position ... That's why the market at the RB position is lower and the GMs are not ready to give big contracts at RB as at other positions.

[N4L]

25 minutes ago, Slateman said:

43 minutes ago, N4L said:

Which is exactly why RBs need to be compensated fairly for their production earlier in their careers. 

The arbitration idea is to find middle ground. It doesn't just automatically reward rookie running backs, but it does compensate guys who are actually productive

I'll repeat myself: They would stop offering contracts. No one is going to pay big time money for a running back in today's environment unless that RB is truly special

I think you missed the point of the thread. These arbitration years are for running backs on their rookie contracts only. 

Once a guy is a free agent, they will sign whatever contract the market offers. Theoretically they would be able to receive better contract offers because the pay gap disparity between rookie contract runners and runners who have hit free agency would be less. 

@JaguarCrazy2832 I don't think it would be an issue to do this for only one position

[Slateman]

19 minutes ago, N4L said:

I think you missed the point of the thread. These arbitration years are for running backs on their rookie contracts only. 

Once a guy is a free agent, they will sign whatever contract the market offers. Theoretically they would be able to receive better contract offers because the pay gap disparity between rookie contract runners and runners who have hit free agency would be less. 

@JaguarCrazy2832 I don't think it would be an issue to do this for only one position

Yea, no, I got it. I'm telling you, the second a team feels like they can get the same production from a rookie back, they'll non-tender the arbitration player. In the world of cap management, that would be gift to most teams. Very few would extend their running backs over a  year or two of arbitration. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Slateman

[MWil23]

I wouldn't mind seeing a "draft slot" compensation for rookie RB's instead of a "position based" pay system. Zeke/Barkley were drafted Top 5 and should get Top 5 money. That 5th year option on a RB is a killer if you aren't going to give them the draft position compensation vs. positional value compensation.

[Forge]

Its just not feasible, in my opinion. I don't know how you offer arbitration for running backs but not for other positions from a legal standpoint. I don't know that you can do something like that without some other position player filing suit against the NFL at some point down the line. Simply opens a can of worms that nobody wants opened. 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

3 hours ago, Slateman said:

Lots of us knocked Smith. Lots of us call bullcrap when everyone wanted to anoint him as the greatest ever. You just can't hear us because you're too busy watching Joe Buck and Stephen A Smith. 

Your average college RB would have averaged 1200 yards behind that line. 

Idk what's worse, that you think I watch Stephen A Smith or the fact an average college RB could average that many yards. Thats just not true

Here are the # of RBs that eclipsed 1200 rushing yards by year:

2018: 3

2017: 3

2016: 7

2015: 2

2014: 6

So the AVERAGE college RB could do something that not even happened by 5 RBs a year and those RBs are FAR from average

[JaguarCrazy2832]

3 hours ago, N4L said:

I think you missed the point of the thread. These arbitration years are for running backs on their rookie contracts only. 

Once a guy is a free agent, they will sign whatever contract the market offers. Theoretically they would be able to receive better contract offers because the pay gap disparity between rookie contract runners and runners who have hit free agency would be less. 

@JaguarCrazy2832 I don't think it would be an issue to do this for only one position

I dont hate the idea, but I just can't wait for teams to say CMC is a WR because he catches 100+ passes haha

[N4L]

1 hour ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

I dont hate the idea, but I just can't wait for teams to say CMC is a WR because he catches 100+ passes haha

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. 

[Slateman]

1 hour ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

Idk what's worse, that you think I watch Stephen A Smith or the fact an average college RB could average that many yards. Thats just not true

Here are the # of RBs that eclipsed 1200 rushing yards by year:

2018: 3

2017: 3

2016: 7

2015: 2

2014: 6

So the AVERAGE college RB could do something that not even happened by 5 RBs a year and those RBs are FAR from average

Behind that offensive line? Yes, absolutely.