Is it actually worth it drafting RB's high + extending them?

[Teen Girl Squad]

One tricky thing with drafting RBs high is that their expectations of what a fair/deserving extension looks like. Its not a perfect comparison but contrast what Henry/Chubb got as second deals vs. what CMC got. Pedigree matters more than it should with these deals. If I could lock in the equivalent of the Henry/Chubb deals off the rookie contract, that is fine and dandy for me but not the drama of the CMC/Barkley(potentially). 

[General Tso]

This makes me wonder how you value a first round pick. Are you picking an elite talent? Someone who has a likely chance of getting a 2nd contract? Production that is cheaper than what market rate is at that position? Some combination of everything?

Let's say you take Bijan in the first and get 5 years of Pro-Bowl or near level production out of him and let him walk after that. Was it "worth a 1st round"?

[CP3MVP]

I always been of the belief that running back receptions are overrated in the vast majority of cases. It’s usually a failed completion or a dump off that goes nowhere. The defense wants you to throw to the backs 

[Jakuvious]

7 hours ago, CP3MVP said:

I always been of the belief that running back receptions are overrated in the vast majority of cases. It’s usually a failed completion or a dump off that goes nowhere. The defense wants you to throw to the backs 

Eh. Depends on the offense, to me. Well-designed, better timed offenses, with better QBs, can make the dumpoffs to the back a really big problem. I don't ever remember feeling like Tom Brady throwing to James White was a win for our D when we played the Pats. Jerick McKinnon's value add as a receiver was crazy last year for the Chiefs, too. 56 receptions, and 28 went for first downs. Compared to like, Rhamondre Stephenson, who had 69 catches for only 13 first downs, so just getting a lot of dumpoffs that didn't go all that far.

[General Tso]

 

[ramssuperbowl99]

On 4/8/2023 at 12:40 AM, General Tso said:

This makes me wonder how you value a first round pick. Are you picking an elite talent? Someone who has a likely chance of getting a 2nd contract? Production that is cheaper than what market rate is at that position? Some combination of everything?

Let's say you take Bijan in the first and get 5 years of Pro-Bowl or near level production out of him and let him walk after that. Was it "worth a 1st round"?

The bolded - it's all about getting elite players on 2nd contracts. This lets teams use their salary cap dollars way more efficiently by getting players to take a discount in exchange for the security of guaranteed future years. And it doesn't look that way to fans because each new contact is the biggest one, but even if a team is resetting the market on an elite edge rusher, it's a depressed market because every deal has priced in that better team value in exchange for player security trade off.

If you don't draft these guys, you have to use the cap dollars you have to sign free agents, who are all the guys other teams could have extended but passed on for one reason or another. There are good players, but there's no value there.

[adamq]

I can't remember which one, but someone i heard on a podcast make a good point on RBs.. drafting them in the late 1st can be an advantage if they hit and you can handle the personalities because you get that 5th year option.. 4 year rookie deal +1 option year, and then give him the tag twice. That totals out to 7 years, ~45m.. at that point you move on.

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by adamq

[Jakuvious]

6 hours ago, adamq said:

I can't remember which one, but someone i heard on a podcast make a good point on RBs.. drafting them in the late 1st can be an advantage if they hit and you can handle the personalities because you get that 5th year option.. 4 year rookie deal +1 option year, and then give him the tag twice. That totals out to 7 years, ~45m.. at that point you move on.

 

Those last 3 years are not particularly good values, though. Those last three years would, at minimum, be the equivalent of what Nick Chubb got on his extension anyways. Possibly higher if we're projecting into a future year. There's a decent chance you could negotiate something better for those 3 years than what basically amounts to three franchise tags (one note some may not know, is the 5th year option equates to the cost of the franchise tag if the player goes to multiple pro-bowls, which presumably they did if we want to keep them.) The reality is still playing top dollar for a RB that's probably already starting to decline a little bit (Zeke and Henry are 7 year pros, for reference.) And that's even assuming they'll play on those tags anyway.

[AkronsWitness]

Is paying them worth it? Yes. In some cases

 

[Dr LBC]

As always, it's not a black and white matter.

Certain schemes made the necessity of having an elite trait running back a non-necessity; that said, in the limited instance where an elite trait RB has been plugged into those schemes, it's been a rather stratospheric result.  Similarly, certain schemes are fairly visibly built around operating on a RBBC, so again, having that workhorse back that's going to shoulder 75%+ of the load is not only not necessary, it actually goes against the design of the scheme - which is often to exploit individual matchups either with the respective skillset of one of the members of the committee on that given matchup or to ride whatever hand heat up the quickest.

The most clear example of the first instance is the original Shanahan/Kubiak ZBS offense; it didn't need an elite trait runner to churn out 1000-yard rushers year after year, but when you plugged a a guy with this elite traits like Clinton Portis, he put up season numbers that would have been on schedule (if projected long term) for the HOF.  A more recent example being Kyle Shanahan's offense in San Francisco, where - if we're being honest - guys like Raheem Mostert, Elijah Mitchell, etc. are nobody special, but they were still capable of putting up the kind of efficiency that you can ride to win column on the regular... but plug in Christian McCaffery and it opens up a whole other dimension to the scheme.

Now, yes, the league is currently by and large a passing league, but the league is also cyclical (it's not unlike the economy), but that doesn't mean that there haven't been teams exploiting the fact that a majority is trending towards the new hotness and trying to replicate that, and instead this minority has been taking a different tack and still finding reasonable success.  Now this could be a chicken/egg matter where Tennessee and Derrick Henry are concerned, but reality is that despite occasional spikes, history has shown us that there will always be a limited supply of true (tested and proven) elite QB's, and as a result a combination of scheme, an elite runner, or both will be utilized to offset the shortcomings of the non-elite QB's in order to compete with the teams that are fortunate enough to have one.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

RB is so weird because you almost dont want them to reach their full potential by the end of the contract otherwise no one will want to pay the big contract

Drafting a RB who plays at an elite level almost hurts their value bc they wont get what they're worth

[CriminalMind]

Even if you guess right and took a great RB in the top 20, you gonna get screwed if you want to extend them. 

other factors: injury odds, production replaceable by committee, more air offense 

don’t do it

[beekay414]

I'd gladly take Bijan in Green Bay at 15.

[BetterCallSaul]

Investing in your OL and having a random UDFA as your RB seems like the way to go. Or just do the hot thing right now: move to an outside zone scheme and bring in an average high school RB. Watch the production flow!

[Dr LBC]

On 4/15/2023 at 7:44 PM, beekay414 said:

I'd gladly take Bijan in Green Bay at 15.

It also depends on, from a perspective sense, a person willing to give an honest evaluation of where their team is at in terms of legitimately competing (I'm not talking just making the playoffs and having "a lottery ticket," but actually being favored to make a deep run) and whether that's just hopeful projected (heavily?) tinged by personal bias.

Would I think Buffalo would gratefully take Bijan in the 1st if they get a natural shot at him?  Hell yes.  It would add a dimension to their offense that (with all due respect to the runners they have under contract) they don't have outside of Josh Allen... but at the same time, being able to afford some of those reps (and hits/wear) that Allen might otherwise be taking to Bijan, because they already have a ton of money committed to Allen (as well as him playing a more difficult to attain position)... well that also is a boon.

Do I think a team should be spending a Top 15 pick on Bijan (or any generational running back) if they're picking the Top 15 for a good reason and not just a blip season caused be bulk injuries (i.e. they don't have a team pre-draft very capable and confident of making the playoffs)?  No.  Do I think teams in there still will for a myriad of reasons?  Absolutely.  I look at it similar to the idea of a Maserati as a daily driver; it really serves no practical purpose (aside from flash and ego) and will honestly probably cost you more in the expenditure dept (fuel, maintenance) than you'll ever really get the perks of having such a specimen because we have speed limits and no Autobahn in this country.  But if you offer it at a "discounted" (or at least perceived so) price to strings of people who have been stuck driving Ford Focus' and Honda Accords out of necessity, far more often than not you're going to find on of them to ****** up the keys before you get to the segment that drive Mustangs or even Lexus' come up in the order.