Great White Shark
Posts: 2481
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 6,195.18
Fair enough if this gets moved, but aside from some of the comedy in the article, it's a fair question right?

https://slate.com/culture/2019/08/do-ru ... opher.html

Also this is funny...

Speaking of fandom, Kierkegaard said, “Deep within every human being there still lives the anxiety over the possibility of being alone in the world, forgotten by God, overlooked among the millions and millions in this enormous household.” If he were alive today, do you think Kierkegaard would be a New York Jets fan?


And, of course, in fantasy RBs matter because we have roster spots specifically for them. But in the larger context of actual real football. Do RBs matter? How much do they matter?

Pertinent question frankly considering Bell, Zeke, Gordon...
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 25579
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004
Sand$: 96,505.43
They matter more than perhaps ever before in fantasy. Rule changes favoring QBs and WRs have made them rather interchangeable in today's NFL. The only way to let them loose again is by allowing more DB contact on WRs to slow the game down. This is what would most drive me back to watch the NFL. Allowing contact back at original 1990s levels of 10 yards.
Great White Shark
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004
Sand$: 5,398.24
If you look at the playoff teams, KC used Williams a ton in playoffs and Hunt when he was playing was great. Rams used Gurley and CJ a lot. Saints and Kamara. Patriots and Michel and White. Seems like the Best teams relied on RBs a fair amount
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 37629
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006
Sand$: 52,212.79
db45655 wrote:If you look at the playoff teams, KC used Williams a ton in playoffs and Hunt when he was playing was great. Rams used Gurley and CJ a lot. Saints and Kamara. Patriots and Michel and White. Seems like the Best teams relied on RBs a fair amount

I think the running game matters, but the question is whether the individual who is running matters. I think the individual does matter, but far less than the o-line.
Moderator
Posts: 56015
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 113,274.80
Of course they matter. The problem from a financial perspective is they generally peak while under the rookie wage scale.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 28523
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008
Sand$: 76,465.34
unimsw wrote:
db45655 wrote:If you look at the playoff teams, KC used Williams a ton in playoffs and Hunt when he was playing was great. Rams used Gurley and CJ a lot. Saints and Kamara. Patriots and Michel and White. Seems like the Best teams relied on RBs a fair amount

I think the running game matters, but the question is whether the individual who is running matters. I think the individual does matter, but far less than the o-line.


I like this answer.
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 3091
Joined: Fri Sep 3, 2010
Sand$: 9,863.85
^Indeed.
_______________________________________

With mind distracted, never thinking death is coming...
To slave away on the pointless business of mundane life,
and then to come out empty is a tragic error...
Great White Shark
Posts: 2481
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 6,195.18
OarChambo wrote:Of course they matter. The problem from a financial perspective is they generally peak while under the rookie wage scale.


Is the problem that they peak or that they are so easily replaced? Outside of the top guys (and we can debate how many of those there are) why would a team give the Joe Mixons of the world big contracts?

We can look at Bell and Gordon and maybe Zeke too, because those guys are generally considered top 10 (if not better) RBs, and I'm not talking fantasy. The Steelers never caved, but Bell got paid eventually anyway. The Chargers don't look like they are going to cave, and I have no idea what's going on in Dallas.

Is it just about cost, or is it more about value above replacement not being what RBs and their agents seem to think it is?
Moderator
Posts: 56015
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 113,274.80
RB's are at their best at age 23-25 or so. When they're cheap. Expected performance begins to decline at that age right when they're getting to free agency and the almighty big second contract. The same is not true for other positions. Performance isn't expected to decline until at least later in their 20's.

I think positional value plays a role, but think the above is the main problem. Top tier talent at less valuable positions not named rb do not have problems getting that 2nd contract because it's reasonable to expect their level of performance to maintain for several years after they first get to free agency.
Tiger Shark
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Jun 8, 2017
Sand$: 90.00
Running backs matter but look at the Patriots and how they dont pay a top back but instead get 2-3 lesser backs who can do the same job as 1 back but for less money. I think you are seeing the Bells, Zekes, Gordons, etc. become less valuable to teams because they are costing so much money and teams can find 2-3 replacements for cheaper. Teams cannot pay QB's and RB's top dollar and expect to field a 53 man roster that can compete.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 28523
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008
Sand$: 76,465.34
ubertaco wrote:
OarChambo wrote:Of course they matter. The problem from a financial perspective is they generally peak while under the rookie wage scale.


Is the problem that they peak or that they are so easily replaced? Outside of the top guys (and we can debate how many of those there are) why would a team give the Joe Mixons of the world big contracts?

We can look at Bell and Gordon and maybe Zeke too, because those guys are generally considered top 10 (if not better) RBs, and I'm not talking fantasy. The Steelers never caved, but Bell got paid eventually anyway. The Chargers don't look like they are going to cave, and I have no idea what's going on in Dallas.

Is it just about cost, or is it more about value above replacement not being what RBs and their agents seem to think it is?



Because some of the joe mixons have the Andy Dalton of the nfl as Qbs.
Moderator
Posts: 56015
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 113,274.80
sammae wrote:Running backs matter but look at the Patriots and how they dont pay a top back but instead get 2-3 lesser backs who can do the same job as 1 back but for less money. I think you are seeing the Bells, Zekes, Gordons, etc. become less valuable to teams because they are costing so much money and teams can find 2-3 replacements for cheaper. Teams cannot pay QB's and RB's top dollar and expect to field a 53 man roster that can compete.

They spent a 1st round pick on Sony Michel and a 3rd round pick on Damien Harris. Sometimes they prioritize them. Sometimes they don't. They don't pay them though. Get 'em while they're young and if they stay cheap enough while maintaining productivity then keep them when they get older - like what they've done with former 4th round pick James White.
Great White Shark
Posts: 2481
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 6,195.18
rugger48 wrote:Because some of the joe mixons have the Andy Dalton of the nfl as Qbs.


Of course talent across the team helps boost the performances of any player, but are you actually suggesting that Mixon is the same caliber RB as Zeke or Gordon or Bell?

I'm not suggesting that Mixon is a bad back, or JAG, but I'm suggesting that he's the kind of RB who is easily replaced by whatever rookie teams want to draft.

The other point about the Patriots is sort of the reason why. Sure they occasionally invest draft capital in a RB, but they understand the market value of that player on the rookie contract and if they hit the right guy (they don't always, no one does) then they have their lead back for 3-4 years at a dirt cheap price.

Joe Mixon? I only said he's unlikely to get a big contract when he's due. Of course some teams are dumber than others... Or just have money to piss away due to their current cap structure.
Great White Shark
Posts: 7428
Joined: Wed Jul 4, 2007
Sand$: 45,541.30
joe mixons value is tied to the bungles horrible oline,not andy dalton...see how well dj did last yr behind a horrible line
Great White Shark
Posts: 2481
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 6,195.18
Maybe I'm way off on Mixon, but I never saw him as a top 10 NFL RB.

But his value to the Bengals is the same as the value of any other RB behind a bad oline. No reason to pay him a lot of money if the oline sucks. Any other RB can blame the oline for a lack of production. I mean Mixon is certainly better than Hill was or Bernard is, but is he worth a 'big' contract?