RB's Don't Matter?

[bshaw28]

9 of the top 10 paid NFL RBs didn't even make it to the playoffs last season. They are a dime a dozen. Still overvalued at the draft IMO. I wouldn't even bother looking at a RB for several rounds.

I think RB's are less valuable than they used to be, but people have devalued them too far.

If you're looking at average salaries:

3 out of 10 highest paid RB's made the playoffs
5 out of 10 highest paid WR's made the playoffs
5 out of 10 highest paid QB's made the playoffs
3 out of 10 highest paid OL's made the playoffs
5 out of 10 highest paid DL's made the playoffs
3 out of 10 highest paid LB's made the playoffs
5 out of 10 highest paid DB's made the playoffs


Not a big difference. Even so, I don't think looking at salaries is the right way to do it. The last 2 MVP's are Mahomes & Jackson, are grossly underpaid since they're still on their rookie contracts. Salary isn't the best reflection of worth.

But even if you're looking at production, there's not much difference

3 out of 10 RB rushing yds leaders made the playoffs
3 out of 10 WR receiving yds leaders made the playoffs
5 out of 10 QB passing yds leaders made the playoffs
4 out of 10 sacks yds leaders made the playoffs
3 out of 10 tackles leaders made the playoffs
9 out of 12 interceptions leaders made the playoffs (4-12 were tied with 5 INT's)

 

[BoxingRobes]

But in terms of "value" it looks different. The first 3 rounds are much more valuable. For instance, the "trade value" of the position where 2020 RB's were taken was about 3,600 whereas in 2019 they were about 2,400. 8 RB's taken in rounds 5-6 don't match the value of 2 taken in the 3rd Round.

Usually it's a 2 to 1 ratio in RB's drafted Rounds 4-7 to RB's drafted Rounds 1-3. This year it flipped. It was weird that RB's teams would usually let slide to the 4th & 5th were scooped up in the 2nd & 3rd

So many WR's made sense - this was widely being talked about as maybe the best WR class ever. While this RB was talked about as very good, no one was saying best ever. I don't even think it would be considered s better up top than 2015, 2017, or 2018.

I think it's skewed by the NFL copy cat thinking "We have to keep up with KC. We need offense". But it's interesting this thinking way outtrumped the "RB's don't matter" analytic trend.

On top of that - there was some really weird & unprecedented things that happened:

CEH - He's under 210 and runs a 4.6. and went in the 1st. that's unheard of. I don't think that's happened ever. Maybe if you go back to the 1970's.
Gibson - Has 33 career carries. Has 307 career snaps. Was the 2nd pick of the 3rd Round
Talent Wise - I don't think these first 3 rounds has even a remote chance to match 2008 when these RB's were taken first 3 rounds - Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, Ray Rice, Jamaal Charles, Darren McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, Rashard Mendenhall, Steve Slaton, Felix Jones, Kevin Smith

I get it.

I think was a unique year with a small number of draftable running backs that all graded out similarly and the run on them just happened to start at the end of R2 and into R3, instead of that run usually happening end of R3, into R4. Think you can see this when Rams took Cam Akers you saw teams start to get trigger happy. The batch of RBs taken after Cam Akers just tell me that teams got trigger happy and wanted to get someone before they were gone. 1 RB every 6 picks by the late 2nd round is anomalous.

Also, with the lack of pro days and incomplete evaluations for a lot of teams, as I said in the draft thread, this was a year where teams just took what they knew, played it safe, and let it ride.

 

[Canes82]

RB by committee. If I share my workload between 2-3 backs, I don’t have to overpay for any one specific player.
It’s not 1999 - I don’t need that 1500 yard rusher.
Chiefs cut Hunt and won the Super Bowl the very next year.
RB shelf life is low and their production, in most cases, can be replaced rather easily.

 

[can4life]

The RB position will always matter. The position is still evolving you have to be able to run, catch and block at a high level and not have alot of tred on the tires. I hope kids are paying attention and adapting.

 

[Home Slice]

RBs absolutely matter. Quality needed. The quantity of backs needed is obviously less than when teams were 2 backs on most downs. That said, you still want to have a stable big enough to not burden one guy.

 

[bshaw28]

I get it.

I think was a unique year with a small number of draftable running backs that all graded out similarly and the run on them just happened to start at the end of R2 and into R3, instead of that run usually happening end of R3, into R4. Think you can see this when Rams took Cam Akers you saw teams start to get trigger happy. The batch of RBs taken after Cam Akers just tell me that teams got trigger happy and wanted to get someone before they were gone. 1 RB every 6 picks by the late 2nd round is anomalous.

Also, with the lack of pro days and incomplete evaluations for a lot of teams, as I said in the draft thread, this was a year where teams just took what they knew, played it safe, and let it ride.

The Top 5 RB's were ranked very close - CEH, Swift, Taylor, Akers, Dobbins. But the there was a perceived large drop off in talent for the next 5 - Dillon, Gibson, Vaughn, Moss, Evans - and those guys all went in the Top half of the 3rd round. That's really high. They weren't drafted like there was any drop.

I think the lack of pro days affected the draft with teams going with players they saw at the combine. It hurt small school players, but not positions. All positions should've been affected equally. Why did teams play it safe with a RB vs a DB/OL/DL (more important position) they saw at the combine?

PFF has gone really far with the "RB's don't matter" analytics. Their top RB D'Andre Swift was ranked #74 on their big board, but 8 RB's were taken in the Top 76 picks. Dillon went #62 overall and wasn't even on their Top 250. Crazy to see the analytics swing so far one way & teams go the opposite.

Now - maybe the analytics prove right in the long run. Maybe RB's shouldn't be drafted before the 3rd Round. Or maybe taking RB's high will become more of a trend with the "use'em up on their 1st contract then let them go" theory becoming more popular.

It'll be interesting to see what trend happens in the long run.

 

[Empirical Cane]

If it's a Saquon Barkley type then yes, but like this years class, no

Even as gifted a S Barkley is, has his production and impact warranted the first round investment?

Point I'm trying to make is no one is truly capable of producing on their first contract relative to the hype and investment of resources that comes with first rd $.

I'd argue the huge $ free agent signings are also skewed.

 

[bshaw28]

Even as gifted a S Barkley is, has his production and impact warranted the first round investment?

Point I'm trying to make is no one is truly capable of producing on their first contract relative to the hype and investment of resources that comes with first rd $.

I'd argue the huge $ free agent signings are also skewed.

To me it's not the 1st Round as a whole - but where in the 1st Round.

RB's, Guards/Centers, Safeties, TE's - they're all considered a "don't take in the Top 10 picks" positions, which is generally correct.

Some years the best RB is so good, a Top 10 pick can make sense. Some years the best RB shouldn't go until the 2nd Round. It all depends on the player vs a set in stone rule.

 

[Gooner#44]

Even as gifted a S Barkley is, has his production and impact warranted the first round investment?

Point I'm trying to make is no one is truly capable of producing on their first contract relative to the hype and investment of resources that comes with first rd $.

I'd argue the huge $ free agent signings are also skewed.

Absolutely, some RBs have, but they have to he special.... guys like Saquon, CMac, Zeke, Gurley don't come out every year

 

[BoxingRobes]

The Top 5 RB's were ranked very close - CEH, Swift, Taylor, Akers, Dobbins. But the there was a perceived large drop off in talent for the next 5 - Dillon, Gibson, Vaughn, Moss, Evans - and those guys all went in the Top half of the 3rd round. That's really high. They weren't drafted like there was any drop.

I think the lack of pro days affected the draft with teams going with players they saw at the combine. It hurt small school players, but not positions. All positions should've been affected equally. Why did teams play it safe with a RB vs a DB/OL/DL (more important position) they saw at the combine?

PFF has gone really far with the "RB's don't matter" analytics. Their top RB D'Andre Swift was ranked #74 on their big board, but 8 RB's were taken in the Top 76 picks. Dillon went #62 overall and wasn't even on their Top 250. Crazy to see the analytics swing so far one way & teams go the opposite.

Now - maybe the analytics prove right in the long run. Maybe RB's shouldn't be drafted before the 3rd Round. Or maybe taking RB's high will become more of a trend with the "use'em up on their 1st contract then let them go" theory becoming more popular.

It'll be interesting to see what trend happens in the long run.

FWIW - I dont have much problem with RBs being taken in R2 and R3, but I'm firmly on the side of this position group not having much value on a team winning. They are complimentary pieces.

This year is just a tough year to use as a talking point considering there was a brief run on them, and then so few RBs were drafted after it and ultimately, the fewest RBs ever drafted. Just a weird year. I'm not sure in the grand scheme its going to be relevant when you look at trends over the course of the decade.

 

[bshaw28]

FWIW - I dont have much problem with RBs being taken in R2 and R3, but I'm firmly on the side of this position group not having much value on a team winning. They are complimentary pieces.

This year is just a tough year to use as a talking point considering there was a brief run on them, and then so few RBs were drafted after it and ultimately, the fewest RBs ever drafted. Just a weird year. I'm not sure in the grand scheme its going to be relevant when you look at trends over the course of the decade.

I hear you - I don't think it's a bad strategy, I'm just on the side of don't use "never take a RB in the 1st Round" as a hard and fast rule. When they're talented enough, take them in the 1st.

I think RB's have more value than TE's, but I don't hear "never take a TE in the 1st Round" as a thing. TE is the same as an RB to me, just draft them in the 1st when they're talented enough.

 

[BoxingRobes]

I hear you - I don't think it's a bad strategy, I'm just on the side of don't use "never take a RB in the 1st Round" as a hard and fast rule. When they're talented enough, take them in the 1st.

I think RB's have more value than TE's, but I don't hear "never take a TE in the 1st Round" as a thing. TE is the same as an RB to me, just draft them in the 1st when they're talented enough.

For Round 1? Especially at the top, I think its a safe hard and fast rule in today's NFL.

Chiefs at 32 taking another weapon for their offense...aight. Can't argue with that too much...it'd be like if the Chiefs added a slot WR or a pass catching TE. For that offense, they are in a position to add to it and if its a RB, its a RB. But not everyone gets that leeway, especially teams that aren't incredibly close to a Super Bowl. Giants taking Saquon Barkley at the top of R1 when they do not have a QB or the Jaguars taking one to "take the pressure" off of their ****ty one is pretty bad business.

 

[Gooner#44]

I absolutely think guys like CMac/Saquon/Gurley/Zeke are still worth Top 10 picks. With the way they can all catch and run you are looking at guys that bring 2500 yards of offense, 100+ catches and 20 or so TDs. No WRs/TEs produce those #s.

Those RBs are worth every bit of a Top 10 pick

 

[bshaw28]

For Round 1? Especially at the top, I think its a safe hard and fast rule in today's NFL.

Chiefs at 32 taking another weapon for their offense...aight. Can't argue with that too much...it'd be like if the Chiefs added a slot WR or a pass catching TE. For that offense, they are in a position to add to it and if its a RB, its a RB. But not everyone gets that leeway, especially teams that aren't incredibly close to a Super Bowl. Giants taking Saquon Barkley at the top of R1 when they do not have a QB or the Jaguars taking one to "take the pressure" off of their ****ty one is pretty bad business.

I get early in the first round, but the whole first round?

Like, if you can't argue against CEH, who has measurables for a RB that almost never work in any round - would if someone like Zeke, or Saquon, or McCaffery went late in the 1st, would you think that's a mistake?

I think CEH was just a terrible choke by the Chiefs. Your offense is built on speed - why would you take a guy at a position that you didn't need that slows your offense down? Makes no sense.

 

[Gooner#44]

I get early in the first round, but the whole first round?

Like, if you can't argue against CEH, who has measurables for a RB that almost never work in any round - would if someone like Zeke, or Saquon, or McCaffery went late in the 1st, would you think that's a mistake?

I think CEH was just a terrible choke by the Chiefs. Your offense is built on speed - why would you take a guy at a position that you didn't need that slows your offense down? Makes no sense.

Of course those 3 are not, they can go Top 10 and it's not a mistake. They produce more yards and TDs year in and year out than any other position player in the NFL will in his best year. This whole "RBs are dead" thing is being a bit exaggerated.

The Chiefs should have took Taylor, he would make that already fast team faster

 

[DTP]

Like most positions in the NFL now, the RB position has become more specialized. There's a small handful of elite level running backs who do everything well but most teams have guys who specialize in what they want to do on offense. A big, between the tackles, power back may be a great fit on one team but totally worthless on another. Same for the undersized guy who is more of a receiver than runner. You still need a running game but zone schemes have made a lot of backs interchangeable. I mean San Francisco was one of the top rushing teams in the league and I had no idea who any of their running backs were. Picking a running back at the top of the draft is pretty much stupid these days even if he's an elite level talent.

 

[bshaw28]

RB by committee. If I share my workload between 2-3 backs, I don’t have to overpay for any one specific player.

Chiefs cut Hunt and won the Super Bowl the very next year.

I agree RB by committee is what we'll see more.

But the 2018 Chiefs with & without Hunt:

With Hunt - 11 games - 9-2 record - 434 yds per game - 36.7 pts - Scored under 30 pts 2 times in 11 games
W/o Hunt - 5 games - 3-2 record - 406 yds per game - 32.2 pts - Scored under 30 pts 2 times in 5 games

Would the Chiefs have also won the 2018 Super Bowl if they still had Hunt?

 

[Gooner#44]

I agree RB by committee is what we'll see more.

But the 2018 Chiefs with & without Hunt:

With Hunt - 11 games - 9-2 record - 434 yds per game - 36.7 pts - Scored under 30 pts 2 times in 11 games
W/o Hunt - 5 games - 3-2 record - 406 yds per game - 32.2 pts - Scored under 30 pts 2 times in 5 games

Would the Chiefs have also won the 2018 Super Bowl if they still had Hunt?

Absolutely

 

[BoxingRobes]

I get early in the first round, but the whole first round?

Like, if you can't argue against CEH, who has measurables for a RB that almost never work in any round - would if someone like Zeke, or Saquon, or McCaffery went late in the 1st, would you think that's a mistake?

I think CEH was just a terrible choke by the Chiefs. Your offense is built on speed - why would you take a guy at a position that you didn't need that slows your offense down? Makes no sense.

This is all very hypothetical, because you'd never have these guys available on the backend of R1 to be a test case. My only counter to it is that you don't see playoff teams or teams on the brink making a play for these top RBs either. But in theory, sure, if they were there at pick 32, it'd be a different story...but they would also not be drafted to be a 1000 snap count back either.

Zeke is a unique case and as I've said in other threads, probably the only back I would have considered that high...he's a legit Hall of Fame back and I thought so before he was drafted. On the same token, are the Cowboys better or worse today than they would have been if they drafted Jalen Ramsey or DeForest Buckner in R1 (in 2017, they took DE and CB with their first two picks) and then selected Derrick Henry in R2 while still getting Dak later on? I mean, this is what we're talking about here, ultimately. Pick premium positions in R1, get your RB later on. Zeke is also unique in that he plays a high volume of snaps...more than any RB in football.

But lets take Saquon Barkley...his snap count is on par with say...Sterling Shepard and they took him over Lamar Jackson. A mistake many teams made, but we can't act like there weren't many people pounding the table for Lamar either and they took a QB in the very next year. In a fantasy world where Saquon Barkley is drafted by a team with a QB, offensive line, edge rushers, etc...sure...I could be sold.

Also, lets take McCaffrey...they took McCaffrey over Patrick Mahomes, Deshaun Watson after Cam Newton threw 52% the year before. Same scenario as Barkley. Its just not for me and I think teams are wasting draft capital using them on a draft pick so high. If you want a RB...cool...could have had Dalvin Cook and Joe Mixon in R2 or Alvin Kamara in R2 if you wanted to pay up. The same with the Jaguars and Fournette. Could have drafted your QB and a RB in R2 and those teams are now in the playoffs instead of once again drafting in the Top 10.

IMO in nearly all of these cases of a RB being drafted high, its a big mistake by the franchise to do so. In a hypothetical scenario where these types of players are available very late in the draft...ok...but again, my counter is that you don't see these playoff teams moving up to get them.

As for examples where these playoff teams select a RB late in R1, it almost never works.

As for CEH...you're probably right, it won't end well. I think its intriguing ONLY because its the Chiefs...but, reflecting it reminds me of the Giants taking David Wilson after winning a Super Bowl, the Rams taking Trung Candidate after winning the Super Bowl...but this is also a different era of football and I just see CEH as an "offensive weapon" to a team that was just at a Super Bowl that legitimately has all of the foundational pieces locked up. It probably wasn't the best pick they could make, but I understand the philosophy and if you're the Chiefs, its worth a gamble, but I acknowledge it probably doesn't end well, these type of picks rarely do and we could be discussing in one year's time how they should have drafted X. The Chiefs draft was very swinging for the fences, tbh. Could be a lot of nothing sooner rather than later.

Seahawks drafting Rashaad Penny and Patriots drafting Sony Michel late seem silly in hindsight. Mark Ingram to the Saints seems like a nice example of a successful RB taken at 28, but then when you realize they gave up a first round pick next year for him, I'm not sure anyone can defend that when the Patriots used that pick to select Chandler Jones.

 

[bshaw28]

I absolutely think guys like CMac/Saquon/Gurley/Zeke are still worth Top 10 picks. With the way they can all catch and run you are looking at guys that bring 2500 yards of offense, 100+ catches and 20 or so TDs. No WRs/TEs produce those #s.

Those RBs are worth every bit of a Top 10 pick

I'd agree with that too. There's been 17 WR's taken in the first round the last 5 years. Only 4 have had a 1,000 yd season so far. Lots of busts.