NFL Offseason '16

[DG_ThenNowForever]

It sucks if you're a running back. You still play an important position, but the NFL has decided paying you is unimportant. It's awesome if you're a QB or DB because the latter is the only way to mitigate damages done to rule changes that protect the former.

[dfwabel]

6 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

It sucks if you're a running back. You still play an important position, but the NFL has decided paying you is unimportant. It's awesome if you're a QB or DB because the latter is the only way to mitigate damages done to rule changes that protect the former.

When coaches at every level below the NFL (youth/prep/college) have even less regard to the health of a RB. NFL coaches and executives finally wised up. If you were a starting RB since age 10 as you were the biggest and fastest, by the time you are a college junior, you're not going to have much left.

[BBTV]

Is it really an important position anymore the way that most current offenses work?

 

There's a huge gap between the elite QBs and the average QBs.  I'd argue it's similar with DBs.  Is there really that much difference between an elite RB and an average one?  Every week there's guys you never heard of rushing for 120 yards, and there's guys you thought were good who are getting nowhere.  Obviously the elite guys are consistently getting those yards, but it's been proven that teams can lose starting RBs and still have successful seasons as long as their lines are good and they have a good passing game.  

 

You're not winning a SB with an elite RB but no QB.  If you have an elite QB, then you don't really need the elite RB because you won't be handing him the ball a million times.  So there's no real point to wanting an elite RB anymore - sucks for them, but it sucked for the typewriter repair people too.

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I think there's also huge difference in the way the rules favor better-than-average QBs than average QBs. I don't know how the rules could be adjusted to favor better-than-average RBs, but if they were, things might be different. (And right, if my aunt had a dick, etc.)

 

Of all the terrible things Denver did to football, showing how disposable RBs are is the worst. It took the fun out of what was once the marquee NFL position. And, fundamentally, I think the RB position is still the coolest on the field.

 

 

[BBTV]

Gone are the days where the differences between RBs was as dramatic as the difference between Bo Jackson and Brad Muster in Tecmo Super Bowl.

 

The other side of the coin is that elite linemen are getting teh recognition and pay that they deserve, since it's been shown that there's a dramatic drop off between the elite and the average fat guys on the line.

[Rockstar Matt]

Lol 'Skins. Only Hall of Fame talent players are worth that much money, not someone who has 7 INT's for his entire career.

[DCarp1231]

I'm glad the Redskins signed him to fill a much need hole, but Jesus... $50M guaranteed for a guy who's only had one good season?

 

EDIT: The reality of Norman's contract is 2 years/ $36.5 Million guaranteed. After the second year is up, options come into play https://twitter.com/AlbertBreer/status/723868352716873729?s=09

[CS85]

59 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

I'm glad the Redskins signed him to fill a much need hole, but Jesus... $50M guaranteed for a guy who's only had one good season?

 

 

He's a damn good corner, but becoming the highest paid corner in the league is absolutely not merited.  I honestly can't believe the market for corners is what it is, and obviously it's an incredibly important position, but the money these guys are getting seems to escalate every offseason.  The Bears overpaid the living hell out of Tracy Porter who is good, but 3 years $16.5M good?  It's not a terrible contract at all, but that's probably a deal considering the market.  

 

Yoy.  There's rumblings in various places about how the market for cornerback, quarterback, and a few other positions has sort of busted the market for linebacker, but one discussion in a similar vein is how since the 2011 labor deal altered rookie contracts, there's been a drop off of free agent middle class deals.  More teams are trying to build through the draft and develop players than they are to spread money out to veterans.  

 

Yet quarterbacks are, arguably justifiably, paid beaucoup bucks or peanuts.

 

 

[Dynasty]

It still irks me that Joe Flacco leads that chart.

[BBTV]

LOLSAMBRADFORDLOL

 

The sad thing is that some people (around here) are saying that he was one of the best QBs in the league for the last 9 games last season and is now a SB-caliber QB and there's no need to draft a QB for the future.

 

I wouldn't say that's the majority, but it's sad to think that there's enough mouth breathers out there that think it's worth investing a dime in to that deer-in-headlights just-saw-a-UFO looking sack of moist poo.

[HedleyLamarr]

On 4/23/2016 at 9:23 PM, DG_Now said:

I think there's also huge difference in the way the rules favor better-than-average QBs than average QBs. I don't know how the rules could be adjusted to favor better-than-average RBs, but if they were, things might be different. (And right, if my aunt had a dick, etc.)

 

Of all the terrible things Denver did to football, showing how disposable RBs are is the worst. It took the fun out of what was once the marquee NFL position. And, fundamentally, I think the RB position is still the coolest on the field.

Ultimately, the reason why RB's are so disposable is two-fold.

 

For one, the easiest position to learn in the NFL and the easiest position to have instant success is RB.  It's the only position that relies so heavily on instincts rather than knowing the playbook.  QB has to learn how to read defenses and where to get the ball.  WR's have to learn route-running and timing.  O-linemen have to learn blocking schemes.  TE's have to learn both blocking and route-running.  All defenders have to learn defensive schemes and how to beat more talented offensive linemen than they ever saw in college.  For RB's, it's "get ball and run away from the guys wearing the other colored jerseys".  They do have to learn routes, but more often than not, they're having to ab-lib.

 

Two, like relievers in baseball, RB's now have specialized roles.  Rarely do you see 3-down RB's now.  You have your 1st-down and 2nd-and-manageable yards RB's.  You have your passing-situations RB.  You have your pass-blocking RB.

[BBTV]

well the RBs need to know where the holes are supposed to be, which implies that they need to understand the blocking schemes up front.  Plus, they need to block for the QB on some passing plays, so it's not quite as idiot-proof as you're making it out to be, but with as large as linemen have gotten and the fact that there's not a lot of traps or counters or other pulling-linemen plays anymore because of zone blocking, it's certainly not as cerebral a position as maybe it once was.

 

You want to talk worthless?  Howabout fullbacks!  Anymore if you need a fullback, just throw a linebacker or even a lineman or tight end in there for the one or two plays that require a lead blocker in the backfield.  Gone are the days of fullbacks being threats to carry the ball or catch passes.  They're the typewriter repair people of the NFL.

[Rockstar Matt]

3 hours ago, HedleyLamarr said:

Ultimately, the reason why RB's are so disposable is two-fold.

 

For one, the easiest position to learn in the NFL and the easiest position to have instant success is RB.  It's the only position that relies so heavily on instincts rather than knowing the playbook.  QB has to learn how to read defenses and where to get the ball.  WR's have to learn route-running and timing.  O-linemen have to learn blocking schemes.  TE's have to learn both blocking and route-running.  All defenders have to learn defensive schemes and how to beat more talented offensive linemen than they ever saw in college.  For RB's, it's "get ball and run away from the guys wearing the other colored jerseys".  They do have to learn routes, but more often than not, they're having to ab-lib.

 

Two, like relievers in baseball, RB's now have specialized roles.  Rarely do you see 3-down RB's now.  You have your 1st-down and 2nd-and-manageable yards RB's.  You have your passing-situations RB.  You have your pass-blocking RB.

 

Wait, wouldn't that indicate how unique, and valuable a running back's skill set is? Rather than having to learn a playbook, which nearly anybody can do, they need to have an innate ability that cannot be taught?

[HedleyLamarr]

6 hours ago, Rockstar Matt said:

 

Wait, wouldn't that indicate how unique, and valuable a running back's skill set is? Rather than having to learn a playbook, which nearly anybody can do, they need to have an innate ability that cannot be taught?

No.

 

It;s the QB handing you the ball with your role being to get as far up-field as you can while trying to avoid 11 guys waiting to tackle you.  Easiest role in all of football.

[BBTV]

You still need to have the "feel" for where the holes are and where the defenders are that you can't see and make the right cut so taht you're not running right in to your guard's ass.  I don't think RBs are that valuable anymore, but I think that you should give them a little more credit.  Zone blocking has made it a little more of an instinctual position vs knowing that the hole will be off tackle.

 

 

[BBTV]

Has there been a team that's won the super bowl (in the "modern era", which I'll arbitrarily define as 90s->) on the back of an elite running back as opposed to a QB or defense?

 

Late-90s Denver kinda comes to mind, but honestly, it was proven that their RBs were interchangeable and IMO Terrell Davis wasn't truly elite - plus, even at the end, Elway was still more than capable.  All the other champions that I can think of relied on QBs or defenses - none of the elite RBs won a SB, with the closest being Thurman Thomas and possibly Brian Westbrook (I'll put him in the elite category for a 4-5 year stretch.)  

 

 

[dfwabel]

32 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Has there been a team that's won the super bowl (in the "modern era", which I'll arbitrarily define as 90s->) on the back of an elite running back as opposed to a QB or defense?

 

Late-90s Denver kinda comes to mind, but honestly, it was proven that their RBs were interchangeable and IMO Terrell Davis wasn't truly elite - plus, even at the end, Elway was still more than capable.  All the other champions that I can think of relied on QBs or defenses - none of the elite RBs won a SB, with the closest being Thurman Thomas and possibly Brian Westbrook (I'll put him in the elite category for a 4-5 year stretch.)  

 

 

Not really; those who get their teams there lost or "get robbed by the officials against the Steelers".

Super Bowl XXXIV: Eddie George

Super Bowl XXXVIII: Stephen Davis

Super Bowl XL: Shaun Alexander

 

The only other real choice who won is Jamal Lewis who was a rookie when the Ravens beat the Giants.  He was 2nd team NFL All-Decade for the 2000's, and rushed for 1,300+ yards as a rookie and followed it up big time in the following four seasons. He could be considered "elite". 

[BBTV]

Maybe, but that team won because t had one of the best defenses of all time. They weren't built around their "elite" running back. 

 

Its been proven oven time and time again that it doesn't make sense to invest heavily in running back. A great QB and passing game marginalized the running back that you've invested so much in, and if you decide to buck the trend and truly try to win by running, he will get injured and your left to your backup.

 

Being a great college running back might get you headlines and get you laid a lot, but it's not going to make NFL teams want you, and I don't blame them. 

 

As much as I hate Donovan McNabb both as a player and personally as a human being, drafting him over Ricky Williams (which is who I and the rest of the fan base wanted, to a near violent extent) was the right choice. I'd take the 10th best OT on the board over the best RB in the first round. 

[HedleyLamarr]

Think about those "great college RB's"....they were used so much because their talent was simply better.  And, they were most likely the most talented player on the field in their high school games and any other Pop Warner/Little League games as well, and were played as much as possible then.  So by the time they come out for the NFL Draft, they've already got a ton of mileage on their permanent record.

[BBTV]

maybe, but because they're so much more talented, and playing against guys that simply aren't on their level, are they really getting pounded that much? Sure they're getting tackled, but it's not like NFL-caliber players are knocking them out full speed. 

 

Hell half the time at least in the HS level the top RBs are the ones influcting the damage as they're going down.