Runningback market is brutal

[MWil23]

13 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

17 minutes ago, SmittyBacall said:

It wouldn't surprise me to see the college talent pool at RB drop off a cliff, conversely while receiver prospects continue to boom in numbers. There's no longer an incentive to play RB at a high-level unless it's literally the only option.

This has already happened.

Over the past decade WRs and CBs have gotten taller/bigger on average, while LBs have gotten slightly smaller and blended more with hybrid safety roles. Totally consistent with the influx of elite athletes with the size/skill to play RB, but who don't.

Forget college, it’s already happening in high school and lower. Your best athletes play quarterback, slot/RB hybrid (your guys like Gibbs, Kamara, etc), and wide receiver.

Your best defenders, guys who would have been your old school MIKE LB types are now EDGE players, and your best rangy and length defenders play corner and apex.

Tweeners now play WLB or SLB depending upon athleticism. If he’s athletic, he’s a Will. If he’s a thumper, he’s a Sam.

Danny Davis for example was an I Back and Y combo player in HS.

Reuben Foster and Micah Parsons were WILL/EDGE hybrids.

Granted, in HS the formation and alignment is a tell presnap, but it’s not like most teams can do anything about it at that level even when you know what’s going to happen…whereas in college it’s different…albeit not when you have elite teams playing against the conference doormat like Vandy.

[CP3MVP]

I can get the same production with a RBBC

[ramssuperbowl99]

On 6/13/2023 at 9:19 AM, MWil23 said:

Forget college, it’s already happening in high school and lower. Your best athletes play quarterback, slot/RB hybrid (your guys like Gibbs, Kamara, etc), and wide receiver.

Your best defenders, guys who would have been your old school MIKE LB types are now EDGE players, and your best rangy and length defenders play corner and apex.

Tweeners now play WLB or SLB depending upon athleticism. If he’s athletic, he’s a Will. If he’s a thumper, he’s a Sam.

Danny Davis for example was an I Back and Y combo player in HS.

Reuben Foster and Micah Parsons were WILL/EDGE hybrids.

Granted, in HS the formation and alignment is a tell presnap, but it’s not like most teams can do anything about it at that level even when you know what’s going to happen…whereas in college it’s different…albeit not when you have elite teams playing against the conference doormat like Vandy.

Yep, this is the trickle up effect. The NFL changes what it wants, and the HS/college games adapt accordingly. 10-20 years ago, if you were a 5* CB, you played RB in college. That's unheard of these days.

[MWil23]

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Yep, this is the trickle up effect. The NFL changes what it wants, and the HS/college games adapt accordingly. 10-20 years ago, if you were a 5* CB, you played RB in college. That's unheard of these days.

It’s the football version of my old college college coach bringing in 7 shortstops one year and moving 3 or 4 of them to the OF Day 1 😂 

[WheatieMan]

9 hours ago, THE DUKE said:

The problem with this is, teams aren't all that worried if they don't sign, next man up.  Like was said earlier, if there are 90 capable guys out there, holding out isn't going to do you much good.  There might be 10-15 free agents on the street right now that might do a serviceable job that are happy to play for the league minimum vs getting an office job for $40k a year and that's IF they have their degree.  One year at league minimum is like 10-15 years of that office job.  When it's proven out time and time again that paying for RBs doesn't translate into the success teams want, they are ok letting those guys go and risking it on those guys who definitely won't be holding out while getting league minimum.  Then they have the cap room to re-sign their top pass rusher, their #1 WR, their franchise QB, their cornerstone LT, their top CB, etc...

I don’t see why they don’t sign 1-2 year deals max with a third year option. You have to get on that second contract ASAP. Surely, the NFLPA can put this in… expedited rookie contract. Two year guaranteed deal (for the high picks) with an option year or what not. But to address your point, there is not an endless talent pool. We are in a new golden age for QBs, but teams, especially NFC teams that play mostly north, ie) Philli, Chic, GB (and the AFC North which is heavy run division) need explosive backs. You just can’t take guys off the streets to play in those divisions.

[THE DUKE]

13 hours ago, WheatieMan said:

I don’t see why they don’t sign 1-2 year deals max with a third year option. You have to get on that second contract ASAP. Surely, the NFLPA can put this in… expedited rookie contract. Two year guaranteed deal (for the high picks) with an option year or what not. But to address your point, there is not an endless talent pool. We are in a new golden age for QBs, but teams, especially NFC teams that play mostly north, ie) Philli, Chic, GB (and the AFC North which is heavy run division) need explosive backs. You just can’t take guys off the streets to play in those divisions.

That would likely require the NFLPA to give up something.  If you make rookie contract length dependent upon position, then that open a can of worms in adding complexity to already complex contract structures in the collective bargaining agreement.

And while the pool of good RBs isn't endless, it's being proven out time and time again, paying elite RBs doesn't lead to winning championships in today's NFL.  You can hate it all you want, but that is what the data says.

[ramssuperbowl99]

13 hours ago, WheatieMan said:

I don’t see why they don’t sign 1-2 year deals max with a third year option. You have to get on that second contract ASAP. Surely, the NFLPA can put this in… expedited rookie contract.

This doesn't solve the problem.

9 minutes ago, THE DUKE said:

And while the pool of good RBs isn't endless, it's being proven out time and time again, paying elite RBs doesn't lead to winning championships in today's NFL.  You can hate it all you want, but that is what the data says.

This is the problem.

So adding to the pool of FA RBs wouldn't help, teams would not pay them as FAs just like they do now and accept the larger churn at the position.

 

The answer to the problem is raising the minimum salary for all NFL players. Since 2000, the minimum salary (including rookie signing bonus for a fair comparison) has been somewhere around 1/300th of the total salary cap. That number should be dropped to somewhere around 1/100, which would put the minimum salary at about $2MM/year.

[offbyone]

Maybe it is just the simple equation of supply and demand.  There are a lot of very good ones and generally there is only one on the field at any given time.  It is also probably the easiest skill position in the nfl to transition from college.  

[squire12]

12 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The answer to the problem is raising the minimum salary for all NFL players. Since 2000, the minimum salary (including rookie signing bonus for a fair comparison) has been somewhere around 1/300th of the total salary cap. That number should be dropped to somewhere around 1/100, which would put the minimum salary at about $2MM/year.

that is a very nice thought and concept.   just not sure that getting the 1700+ players already in the league to vote and pass a provision raising the pay for players not in the league yet while effectively giving themselves a pay cut in the process.  

[ramssuperbowl99]

15 hours ago, squire12 said:

that is a very nice thought and concept.   just not sure that getting the 1700+ players already in the league to vote and pass a provision raising the pay for players not in the league yet while effectively giving themselves a pay cut in the process.  

I don't remember the last CBA that didn't include a minimum wage raise. I understand historically it's been informally tied to cap inflation so it hasn't been above that, but I don't think this is entirely pie in the sky.

[squire12]

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I don't remember the last CBA that didn't include a minimum wage raise. I understand historically it's been informally tied to cap inflation so it hasn't been above that, but I don't think this is entirely pie in the sky.

minimum wage raise is different than 3x raise....which is what you are suggesting

[ramssuperbowl99]

20 minutes ago, squire12 said:

minimum wage raise is different than 3x raise....which is what you are suggesting

I'm not asking the NFLPA to do anything they haven't done before, just at a more aggressive rate. It wouldn't have to be one CBA either.

[squire12]

6 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I don't remember the last CBA that didn't include a minimum wage raise. I understand historically it's been informally tied to cap inflation so it hasn't been above that, but I don't think this is entirely pie in the sky.

The minimum salary has build in increases with the last CBA.  

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cba/minimum/

 

If the idea is to raise it more/ faster, the squeeze then likely comes at the expense of the middle.  Raising the minimum also raises the rookie wage scale.  

https://overthecap.com/draft

 

 

[BetterCallSaul]

On 6/14/2023 at 11:34 AM, offbyone said:

Maybe it is just the simple equation of supply and demand.  There are a lot of very good ones and generally there is only one on the field at any given time.  It is also probably the easiest skill position in the nfl to transition from college.  

It is. Tough cookie for the players, but no1 wants to pay LBs or K/P’s either. We can’t change the rules arbitrarily for RBs when the next undervalued position (LB’s, Specialists) can just claim the same thing. It’d be nice, but it’s not plausible or realistic. 

[TheKillerNacho]

He's been out for more games in his NFL career (27) than he's played (23) and this guy wants to talk about a new contract? In a market where Dalvin Cook, Leonard Fournette, Ezekiel Elliot, Kareem Hunt, James Robinson, and Kenyan Drake can't even find work?

Good luck with that lmao. Ravens proved they could win with or without him - if I was them I would just say "K" and give his job to one of them.