Runningback market is brutal

[Kiwibrown]

For less than  10 million for the season you could probably snag 

 

Zeke power back

Cook Speed back/2nd on the depth chart back

 

Kareem Hunt 3rd down back blocking back and pass catcher.

 

Multiple all pros and probowls between them and they are not even being sniffed at by the nfl.

[43M]

The problem (for them) is you can get similar and younger players for notably cheaper, and those younger players have upside while guys like Zeke and Hunt are rapidly depreciating assets.

I still think Cook will be signed.

Zeke and Hunt might get signed during preseason or regular season either after injuries or cuts.   However, neither is any longer a feature back, and even as tandem backs/backups, teams want to see what they have in younger RBs first.

[NudeTayne]

Dalvin will likely sign soon. The other two will probably sign once someone gets hurt.

[BetterCallSaul]

Sad for runningbacks, but it makes sense. Traditionally, from a young age, all of the best athletes are playing RB. That saturates the market and has driven down the need for one. I am confident that a team that had a good OL/coaching staff could sign an UDFA every year and rush for 1,000 yards with that player. The only RBs nowadays that seem to have value are the young backs that catch passes. Those guys will make money, whereas the rest of the NFL is gonna push away from paying RB’s.

Sucks as a former RB to see the position devalued, but I think RB is valuable—it’s just that there’s so many good ones to pick from. If there were 90 good QB’s in the NFL, it’d be the same thing. Sure they’re the most valuable position in sports, but if there’s enough of them, the market for those guys goes down. 

[MWil23]

To be honest, the NFLPA with the staggered rookie contracts helped kill the market as much as the evolution of the game itself.

You have 5 years of control with a 5th year option and then a very reasonable franchise tag option to circumvent having to give a guy a big(ger) second contract. That puts most in the 27-28 year old bracket and they then are mostly washed.

The franchise tag “in your position” clause is flawed for these players as a result.

[43M]

I think the RB position should have a different set of rules applied since they are workhorses who get used up and discarded quickly, and usually having a much shorter shelf life than other positions.   It isnt fair to that position.   I know some people will scoff at the "fair" part, but I think you need to incentivize playing that position a bit more.

I think making rookie contracts for RBs shorter would help.    2 year contracts....with 3rd year option for 1st rounders.    Also, perhaps making RBs drafted early higher paid out the gate.

I just get annoyed....because thats what Tomlin and the Steelers do with RBs.   They ran Bell into the ground, and will do the same thing with Najee.   Najee is nothing special, but in general, RBs are used and abused early on, and unless they are special, dumped for a newer and cheaper model after their rookie deals.

[Flounch]

That's why i had no problem when the Rams gave this massive contract to Gurley. They paid his past service instead of future service. 

Pay the RB !  

[bucksavage1]

30 minutes ago, 43M said:

I think the RB position should have a different set of rules applied since they are workhorses who get used up and discarded quickly, and usually having a much shorter shelf life than other positions.   It isnt fair to that position.   I know some people will scoff at the "fair" part, but I think you need to incentivize playing that position a bit more.

I think making rookie contracts for RBs shorter would help.    2 year contracts....with 3rd year option for 1st rounders.    Also, perhaps making RBs drafted early higher paid out the gate.

I just get annoyed....because thats what Tomlin and the Steelers do with RBs.   They ran Bell into the ground, and will do the same thing with Najee.   Najee is nothing special, but in general, RBs are used and abused early on, and unless they are special, dumped for a newer and cheaper model after their rookie deals.

I was thinking the same thing. They will have to fix the RB position salary structure wise. The position is highly important, takes a lot of wear n tear and Teams use the top backs with a lot of usage. The decline of the players w high usage is notable but they aren’t to the point where they shouldn’t be on a team. 
 

The players who are still productive are getting lowballed compared to the rest of the league. They’ll have to fix it or there will be less talented players coming up through the future ranks at RB

[Jakuvious]

I get those saying something needs to be done to change the pay system for RBs, but it's honestly incredibly unlikely that that happens. One of the awkward effects of how the CBA allocates money for players, is it is kind of a zero sum game in the end. Anything that allocates more money to the RB position is going to inherently take that money away from other spots. Getting a percentage of the league's revenue is generally great for the players, as it ensures that their earnings increase alongside the league's. But since it is a very set amount of money, structuring things to be more favorable to RBs will equally be unfavorable for non-RBs, so it's not going to be a serious negotiation point for the NFLPA. And it shouldn't, ultimately. Whether that feels fair or not, they do have to represent the players at large.

I also kind of don't think this is quite as bad as people make it out to be. Sure, RBs aren't getting paid like they used to, but they're also not getting used like they used to. Three RBs topped 300 carries last year, and all three are getting paid $10M this year. Compared to 20 years ago when half the league had a RB getting that kind of workload. Less relative pay but less relative usage....kind of makes sense. And that share of money has shifted to more relevant modern positions, WR, QB, etc. Which does make sense.

[Thomas5737]

If a drafted RB got more money and less years what do you think that would do for the position as far as getting drafted?

It might turn into kicker/punter on draft day.

You could get a CB in the 3rd for 4 years on a cheap contract or a RB with fewer years and more money. It would definitely factor into draft boards and hurt the position monetarily for first contracts. Then a projected 1st/2nd round RB gets taken in the 4th and gets less money anyway and the 4th and 5th round RBs turn into udfa.

[43M]

5 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

If a drafted RB got more money and less years what do you think that would do for the position as far as getting drafted?

It might turn into kicker/punter on draft day.

You could get a CB in the 3rd for 4 years on a cheap contract or a RB with fewer years and more money. It would definitely factor into draft boards and hurt the position monetarily for first contracts. Then a projected 1st/2nd round RB gets taken in the 4th and gets less money anyway and the 4th and 5th round RBs turn into udfa.

Fair points.

Another option would be incentive loaded rookie contracts for RBs.    Like, if a RB gets so many carries, all purpose yards, receptions, TDs, etc....more and more incentives kick in.   

Not sure there is a perfect solution, but the current system is extremely unfair towards that position.   RBs have maybe one chance at a lucrative non rookie deal, while most other positions have at least two, but teams are just running these guys into the ground for 4 or 5 years, then moving on after much of the tread is gone and they are lucky to get 2 year deals going forward.

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, 43M said:

Fair points.

Another option would be incentive loaded rookie contracts for RBs.    Like, if a RB gets so many carries, all purpose yards, receptions, TDs, etc....more and more incentives kick in.   

Not sure there is a perfect solution, but the current system is extremely unfair towards that position.   RBs have maybe one chance at a lucrative non rookie deal, while most other positions have at least two, but teams are just running these guys into the ground for 4 or 5 years, then moving on after much of the tread is gone and they are lucky to get 2 year deals going forward.

Oh, I agree with your point.

It would be cool to find a way to make it more fair for them but most of the solutions seem to create additional issues. You know the other positional players would cry foul if RBs were given something that they weren't. At least enough of them to create a problem.

 

Might just have to wait for it to balance back to more of a running league. Maybe defenses go even further to acquire pass rushers instead of run stoppers and go more speed in the secondary at the expense of size. Realistically, we're probably really close to already being at that peak. There will be teams that get offensive linemen because they run block well as opposed to pass block and force defenses to put alternate personnel on the field to try to stop them from running all game. You can be successful running now if you have the right back and line (and willing blockers at receiver) but most coaches are too impatient to go with what works although there are exceptions, I think the Patriots threw like 2 passes a couple years ago because they didn't need to pass.

 

[nagahide13]

I don't think you can make a different set of rules for one position.

1) I'm not even sure how you'd make it happen. A lot of players take RB snaps and could potentially argue that they are or are not RBs. Who would declare what position a player is?

2) RBs are already generally not drafted early and creating a different set of rules for them could potentially devalue them during the draft even more.

I think the only real way to fix it is to decrease the years from 4 and 1 down to 3 and 1. Going further would be overkill IMO.

[MWil23]

12 minutes ago, nagahide13 said:

I don't think you can make a different set of rules for one position.

1) I'm not even sure how you'd make it happen. A lot of players take RB snaps and could potentially argue that they are or are not RBs. Who would declare what position a player is?

2) RBs are already generally not drafted early and creating a different set of rules for them could potentially devalue them during the draft even more.

I think the only real way to fix it is to decrease the years from 4 and 1 down to 3 and 1. Going further would be overkill IMO.

IMO I think the franchise tag needs reworked to be all inclusive regardless of position. No more exploiting TE who are glorified receivers or running backs. If you designate them as a “franchise player” then you are signaling they are a cornerstone and deserve to be compensated accordingly. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

23 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

I get those saying something needs to be done to change the pay system for RBs, but it's honestly incredibly unlikely that that happens. One of the awkward effects of how the CBA allocates money for players, is it is kind of a zero sum game in the end. Anything that allocates more money to the RB position is going to inherently take that money away from other spots. Getting a percentage of the league's revenue is generally great for the players, as it ensures that their earnings increase alongside the league's. But since it is a very set amount of money, structuring things to be more favorable to RBs will equally be unfavorable for non-RBs, so it's not going to be a serious negotiation point for the NFLPA. And it shouldn't, ultimately. Whether that feels fair or not, they do have to represent the players at large.

The fairly unpleasant, quiet part is that 90% of players in the NFL get screwed exactly like RBs - 1, rookie contract that way underpays them with no second deal to make up for it.

 

The way around this is to get rid of the system that makes sure players can only ever negotiate with one team until they've been in the league for 5-8 years already, depending on the round drafted and franchise tag specifics. But I'm talking about killing the draft so people are going to call me dumb for even suggesting it.