The point is.. You don’t need to spend mega dollars on a RB. It’s just a dumb thing to do.
If you have a superstar RB then trade them to someone else and start the process over again.
I get it, but the list doesn't make sense because it doesn't show you what teams dedicated overall to the position. It just says that a specific player happened to be a team's leading rushing in just 1 game; the Super Bowl. I already pointed a couple of the other team's top rushers. Percy Harvin was nowhere near the Seahawks leading rusher that year, it was Marshawn Lynch who was paid pretty well for 2013. Pierre Thomas was not the highest paid back on the Saints in 2009. That would be Reggie Bush who was on an average salary of $9M at the time. Same for Brandon Jacobs who's average earning were 4-5x that of Ahmad Bradshaw.
It's not that these teams didn't spend money on RBs, they most certainly did. They just had a lesser paid player step up in the Super Bowl. That's all that table shows.
This isn't a blueprint, it's just happenstance. There has to be a leading rusher on the winning team every year and it basically comes down to just 2 teams and a handful of players determining who it is.
If Dallas had won the Super Bowl and Pollard was the leading rusher, Dallas would also make this list because Pollard is on a rookie contract. That doesn't mean Dallas has handled the position appropriately because we all know that Zeke's contract is still a waste at this point. That's what I was getting at. Showing what 1 player makes amongst a group of RBs on the winning team is not an indication of how much that team has spent on the position.
Furthermore, nobody really knows how a player will perform in any year so the idea of "just going cheap" because of cherry-picked data is dumb. You might as well just simplify things and say, "always draft the right player".
