Is the NFL "unfair" for Running Backs?

[43M]

I was discussing Najee Harris and how Tomlin uses our RBs with other Steeler fans the other day, and I pointed out that Tomlin is going to run Harris into the ground before he is up for a new contract, and some Steeler fans were like "run him into the ground and let him walk".   While I dont even necessarily completely disagree with that sentiment, I just felt it was indicative of a major issue facing players who play the RB position relative to other positions.

Considering, on average, running backs have the shortest shelf life of any other position, and good ones often get worked relentless when they first enter the league, is the league more "unfair" (for lack of a better word) to running backs than players at other positions?   

You figure, most quality players at other positions have opportunities to get 2, maybe 3 major contracts in their careers.  Meanwhile, RBs are lucky to even get one, in large part due to the nature of the position.    Its one of the easier positions to suffer a major leg injury, you get worked extremely hard (especially feature backs), and youre often considered to be "over the hill" by the time you hit your second contract (unless a RB enters a league at 20 or 21, but even then...).

Quality RBs are not hard to find and I understand why they arent valued like they used to be, but it just sucks how RBs, more than any other position BY FAR, are basically just used up and tossed away.   Most positions are still considered pretty young at 27 or 28, but thats considered fairly old for a RB, especially given the pounding they often take.

I just wanted to see what others thought.

[Apparition]

Yes

Biggest favor you can do for yourself as a RB in today's league is know how to run routes and catch the ball. If you have good receiving skills, you'll extend your career by at least 3-4 years beyond what it would be if you were a "featured back". 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

case in point:

Of course, he got paid after being ran into the ground, but still.

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

8 minutes ago, 43M said:

I was discussing Najee Harris and how Tomlin uses our RBs with other Steeler fans the other day, and I pointed out that Tomlin is going to run Harris into the ground before he is up for a new contract, and some Steeler fans were like "run him into the ground and let him walk".   While I dont even necessarily completely disagree with that sentiment, I just felt it was indicative of a major issue facing players who play the RB position relative to other positions.

Considering, on average, running backs have the shortest shelf life of any other position, and good ones often get worked relentless when they first enter the league, is the league more "unfair" (for lack of a better word) to running backs than players at other positions?   

You figure, most quality players at other positions have opportunities to get 2, maybe 3 major contracts in their careers.  Meanwhile, RBs are lucky to even get one, in large part due to the nature of the position.    Its one of the easier positions to suffer a major leg injury, you get worked extremely hard (especially feature backs), and youre often considered to be "over the hill" by the time you hit your second contract (unless a RB enters a league at 20 or 21, but even then...).

Quality RBs are not hard to find and I understand why they arent valued like they used to be, but it just sucks how RBs, more than any other position BY FAR, are basically just used up and tossed away.   Most positions are still considered pretty young at 27 or 28, but thats considered fairly old for a RB, especially given the pounding they often take.

I just wanted to see what others thought.

It’s “unfair” in that it’s a tough reality of the sport but end of the day it’s the most replaceable position by a long shot. There are about 100 start worthy running backs at any given time in the league it seems like and it’s a business, so there is a kind of market value balance of supply and demand. It’s harsh for running backs I totally agree but it’s hard to say it’s “unfair” when it seems like teams can find starters in late rounds, undrafted , or in the middle of the season coming off the couch. Eventually for a running back you wonder if they could have switched positions in college like Prince Amukamara. I don’t think the league is “unfair” to running backs based on the availability, but I would definitely say its “brutal” to running backs and I do empathize with those players who get ground out without reaching that top flight check 
 

Now the way high school coaches and college teams treat running backs is  criminal. Seeing college backs get 50 carries unpaid in a college game knowing  you as a coach hold all the power over their future and squeezing every little bit of juice out before they can go pro has some pretty toxic undertones IMO.

[Blackstar12]

Yep they take a beating which includes countless helmet to helmet plays that are never called.

[KingOfNewYork]

Here’s my philosophy. Draft a running back every year and as their contract expires you let them walk. Create a pipeline and run through a committee approach. If you happen to land a stud then tag him and move him for a premium pick. There’s far too many good running backs to invest big money into them. 

[MWil23]

Yes

I've said it before and will say it again, while the old rookie wage scale was egregious, it absolutely made sense for running backs for this very reason. Most running backs show within their first year or two that they can be immediate impact players and potentially even the best at their respective position in the league IMMEDIATELY and should be compensated accordingly. Whether it's McCaffrey, Henry, Chubb, Jonathan Taylor in today's game, or LT, Barry Sanders, Walter, Jim Brown, Dickerson, Thurman Thomas, Emmitt, O.J., Earl Campbell, etc. in the past...the list of guys goes on and on here.

So, giving them the money immediately if they were drafted in the first round historically made sense for everyone. 

[NYRaider]

10 hours ago, 43M said:

You figure, most quality players at other positions have opportunities to get 2, maybe 3 major contracts in their careers.  Meanwhile, RBs are lucky to even get one, in large part due to the nature of the position.  

I just checked and it's unreal that there are only 8 RB's in the NFL that make over $10M per year and only 7 that have over $20M guaranteed in their contract. 

[43M]

10 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

case in point:

Of course, he got paid after being ran into the ground, but still.

Good example...and I think its why people have that notion to get as much as out of them as possible and then let them walk.

But thats a pretty crappy deal for RBs.

[43M]

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

Yes

I've said it before and will say it again, while the old rookie wage scale was egregious, it absolutely made sense for running backs for this very reason

100% agreed.

My solution, which will never happen, is to set rookie running back contracts at 2 years, with a 3rd year option.    It would give RBs the chance to get at least one decent contract, if not 2.      Or, if teams let them walk, they have the chance to go where they want and start fresh at 24 or 25, as opposed to 26, 27 or 28. 

Another option would be to make RB rookie contracts highly incentive based.    Like if they get a certain number of touches and/or yards, they get pretty lucrative bonuses.

I dont have the answers, but I know the way it is now is a raw deal.

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by 43M

[LeotheLion]

I wouldn't really say it is unfair. It is a salary cap league and you need to best utilize your resources. Running backs have proven to be a poor waste of cap space and generally premium draft capital. That reflects the compensation. 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

It is absolutely unfair because they do a ton of the heavy lifting even if it isnt the most efficient way of running an offense but their career is cut short because of the position but they know what they are getting into when they sign up to be a RB

[Trojan]

Mamas don't let your 5 star recruits become runningbacks
Don't let them pick RB and be run to the ground
Let them be Corners and Safeties and such
Mama's dont let your babies grow up to be runningbacks
'Cause they'll never get paid and they're back home before 28

Edited November 17, 2021 by Trojan

[Tk3]

From the standpoint of capitalism - its absolutely fair

Not to take away from Chubb/Hunt/Aaron Jones/Zeke/Cook... but the fact that D'Ernest/AJ Dillion/Pollard/Mattison are so successful when they get their reps due to injury proves that (with some exceptions) the value rarely is in the player himself, as much as it is the scheme and the offense. They obviously have value - and they obviously should be paid for their performance. But when you look at the price of goods/services, the more readily available a reasonable substitute is, the lower the price is/should be. Thats Econ 101 stuff

 

From a more ethical standpoint - its not fair

These dudes are in a glamour position. They take some of the worst phyiscal and potentially long term abuse in all of sports. And they don't get paid accordingly/their professional lifespan to be paid is much shorter

 

So imo it depends how you look at it. Younger TK says "beat them into the ground, and move on to the next one".. Older TK still begrudgingly agrees, but feels gross about that

I do agree that its a flaw in the rookie contract scale, that is somewhat exploitative by the teams. A QB can play 4-5 years at a discount then get a huge payday. RBs generally don't get the big payout

[Tk3]

35 minutes ago, Trojan said:

Mamas don't let your 5 star recruits become runningbacks
Don't let them pick RB and be run to the ground
Let them be Corners and Safeties and such
Mama's dont let your babies grow up to be runningbacks
'Cause they'll never get paid and they're back home before 28

I know that post was a joke - but its true though

I'll take it a step farther - don't let them play football at all

If you have an uber athletic child, get them into basketball or baseball. They'll probably get paid more and have less damage on their bodies. Especially basketball. More players over the $40M AAV and is very marketable

(edit): and contracts are guaranteed

There are some absolute TRASH NBA players making $5M+ and mediocre players earning $20M - and they don't have to worry about becoming a cut casualty because the team figures out they aren't worth the money and are better off getting out of the contract

Edited November 17, 2021 by Tk3