Tony Pollard participates in RB summit over market value

Off the top of my head Jacobs, Taylor, Pollard, and Chubb have all been shorted. I understand the market, but those guys have a larger impact and more talent than a lot of lesser players who are paid more at other positions.

CMC, Ekler, Mixon and Henry have all been paid, I thought?

Barkley was great last year, but he has been hurt a lot and not produced a lot. I understand wanting him to prove himself again.
 
curious to see what they think they can do honestly and if it would make any change. I think the QB position has gotten so out of hand $$'s wise and the RB position unfortunatly has gone the other way, there just seems to be a need for the nfl to figure out the compensation thing, no clue what they would do though.
 
It used to be you had to have a great running back...it just isn't the same factor anymore. When the passing game has become so much more effective you pay the guys that excel in that area. Almost all of these guys are pretty much interchangeable. You make money based on the value you bring. McCaffrey maybe the exception because he is top 3 as both a receiver and a runner. Pollard has the same type of skills. A couple others are good at both. Many are just runners and can be replaced relatively easily.
 
Jipper said:
curious to see what they think they can do honestly and if it would make any change. I think the QB position has gotten so out of hand $$'s wise and the RB position unfortunatly has gone the other way, there just seems to be a need for the nfl to figure out the compensation thing, no clue what they would do though.
Click to expand...
The NFL is so pass intensive now, that I dont see the positional value of HB's rebounding. If you get lucky, you are a in a situation like Zeke or Henry were in when he got extended and your team absolutely needs you in order to be competitive
 
It’s not even directly about the CAP.
It’s not just about the longevity, injuries, or how fast RBs can stop being worth their salaries.
It’s the modern analytics. Every owner, GM, and coach knows that no matter how great or average a RB is, the studies show that RBs don’t significantly impact the outcome of games. Every team sport has the facts on how positions impact actual wins over the replacement player. We can all rank the starting RBs from best to worst, but the analytics say that the RB doesn’t have much impact on wins vs losses Or points scored. It’s the OL, the threat of the pass, the scheme fit, and the coach/play-calling.

No matter what our eyes and logic tell us about the difference between Derek Henry of Tennessee and Pacheco of KC, the analytics prove that the next “qualified” starter in line won’t significantly increase or decrease the win total. The QB, Left Tackle, WR, coach, and overall OL effectiveness all impact wins and losses more than the RB/TE positions.
 
DallasDW00ds0n said:
I feel for them. They deserve to get paid the way their bodies are exposed so early into their careers.

Maybe their rookie contracts should be larger
Click to expand...
That’s the reason they’re not getting paid because of the punishment they take early in their careers. By the time their second contract comes around they’re already showing signs of wear and tear. Teams are using multiple backs. RB is one of the easiest positions to find a good player.
 
Sadly, while some youth and even HS QBs can transition to QB or WR or CB, many RBs are only suited for that RB position by physical attributes, so when a starting RB gets the franchise tag and earns more than 10 million for one season, he had better sign it like Pollard as that is as good as it’s going to get.
 
They can all blame Zeke for teams not wanting to pay RBs. His decline began a year after he got paid. Another issue is players are looking for guaranteed contracts these days. No one is going to guarantee a lot of money to an RB. By the time they’re 27 or 28 they’re already showing signs of decline.
 
Unfortunately, that's how the game has shaken out at this point, RBs best years happen to be the initial four or five years which happen to be the ones under the rookie contract. So when it comes time for an extension, they are up the creek without a paddle. Not a lot of leverage because they can now easily be replaced by another rookie RB. If the NFL wanted to be fair to RBs now, it would be to increase their rookie pay cap. Knowing that an extension may wind up as a pay cut if they want to be still employed. As was stated above, the evolution of today's back is being versatile and excellent on both the run and pass game,------- speed, quickness, elusiveness and great hands. Workhorse backs are being put to pasture.

The QB money has gotten so out of control it has affected the other skill position players with WR coming up next. They may be the next ones to start to feel the effects. OL market value is going up.
 
Chuck 54 said:
It’s not even directly about the CAP.
It’s not just about the longevity, injuries, or how fast RBs can stop being worth their salaries.
It’s the modern analytics. Every owner, GM, and coach knows that no matter how great or average a RB is, the studies show that RBs don’t significantly impact the outcome of games. Every team sport has the facts on how positions impact actual wins over the replacement player. We can all rank the starting RBs from best to worst, but the analytics say that the RB doesn’t have much impact on wins vs losses Or points scored. It’s the OL, the threat of the pass, the scheme fit, and the coach/play-calling.

No matter what our eyes and logic tell us about the difference between Derek Henry of Tennessee and Pacheco of KC, the analytics prove that the next “qualified” starter in line won’t significantly increase or decrease the win total. The QB, Left Tackle, WR, coach, and overall OL effectiveness all impact wins and losses more than the RB/TE positions.
Click to expand...
Good post. A big problem I’ve seen for a lot of people to understand this is they can’t differentiate the positional value from the individual player’s value.

RB is an extraordinarily important position in the offense. But the difference between the 9th best RB and the 23rd best RB is not a lot when it come to impact in winning a football game. So if the 23rd is getting 6m$ AAV, there’s no logical reason to pay the 9th 13+. RBs aren’t being undervalued, their market was overvalued and there has been a sharp correction
 
Tony Pollard's tag price of $10 mil sounds about right. If Pollard wants more per year than that, he's definitely being greedy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 74 more.
Total: 4,416 (members: 174, guests: 4,242)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,596
Messages
13,820,767
Members
23,781
Latest member
Vloh10
Back
Top