Is RB the least important position in the NFL?

[Sean Miller Fan]

Honest question. I don't watch the NFL much so I cant say but to me, it seems to be. Besides K and P, if I were fielding a team, I think I'd invest the least in a RB. This country produces such a vast oversupply of RB's, I just think there is so little drop off between a good NFL RB and a guy like Hall or Ollison, both of whom may not even make the NFL (I think they will). So, basically, I would go with a Hall or Ollison at league minimum for a few years then take the next Hall or Ollison in the 6th round.

If RB isn't the least important position, which is?

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

I think it’s a position where there is little difference (with wins and losses) if you have an avg back or a great one. If you have a great back, you can still very easily still be an a bad team.

We’ve seen it countless times. Defined Barry Sanders career, we saw it with Peterson years ago with Vikings. 2k yard season, best season by a back in decades and team barely made playoffs. The return of investment isn’t there. You have a great qb, you see it. You have great wr, you see it. Great DL gives you wins.

 

[HailtoPitt]

It depends. Sometimes a backup comes in and does very well, i.e. Conner. Other times the top RB goes down the the rushing production drops. Look at Gordon and the Chargers.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

Sounds weird but you’d rather have 2 avg backs than one really good one. I hope Steelers have that with JC and Samuels. We will see. You can’t say that about other positions. Two avg wrs over a good one h

But 2 decent backs will get you more wins then one really good one. Add in salary cap issues too and it def helps you.

 

[Pitt79]

All that matters to stay consistently in the hunt is QB. Teams with good QBs locked in have the best shot. When was the last time a non-elite or at least franchise type QB won a Super Bowl? Trent Dilfer 2000? And even he had been a #1 overall draft pick. Also the 2002 Bucs QB wasn't really elite? Can't remember his name?

 

[McKee Place]

It's very important but solid ones are so prevalent that they are essentially commodities.

They also can be effective in varieties of body types and speed. The best WR (or perceived best anyway, given AB doesn't fit the mold) need to be tall, chiseled, fast, good hands, willing to block. Lots of boxes need checked.

On the flip side, the Steelers took a guy who was basically an h-back at NCSt and last week he tortured one of the 5 best teams in the league for a buck fifty in his first start. He had more carries in the NE game than he ever did in a game at NCSt. That looks impressive for Samuel, and it surely is, but it reinforces to the league that any jabroney can do well at the position.

 

[Pitt79]

Sounds weird but you’d rather have 2 avg backs than one really good one. I hope Steelers have that with JC and Samuels. We will see.

But 2 decent backs will get you more wins then one really good one. Add in salary cap issues too and it def helps you.

I don't even understand why teams "run the wheels off" of their starters? Before he was injured Conner had like 250 carries, nobody else more than 20-30. Why not rotate guys in more? Like instead of 250-20, 170-100?

 

[upj87]

All that matters to stay consistently in the hunt is QB. Teams with good QBs locked in have the best shot. When was the last time a non-elite or at least franchise type QB won a Super Bowl? Trent Dilfer 2000? And even he had been a #1 overall draft pick. Also the 2002 Bucs QB wasn't really elite? Can't remember his name?

500 guys can get through an open hole and run fast and strong...15 QBs can consistently get the ball on target in a variety of situations.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

I don't even understand why teams "run the wheels off" of their starters? Before he was injured Conner had like 250 carries, nobody else more than 20-30. Why not rotate guys in more? Like instead of 250-20, 170-100?

I said that about JC. I want Samuels to be good, for JC’s sake. I’d rather see JC get 15 carries a game for 5 years with the Steelers then 25 carries a game for 2 years.

 

[Pitt79]

I said that about JC. I want Samuels to be good, for JC’s sake. I’d rather see JC get 15 carries a game for 5 years with the Steelers then 25 carries a game for 2 years.

But they don't do that. They still have a '90s attitude about RBs, like with Bettis getting 350 carries and his backup getting 40.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

But they don't do that. They still have a '90s attitude about RBs, like with Bettis getting 350 carries and his backup getting 40.

Foster had 390 carries in 92. Basically retired 2 years later. It was a great season though.

I love a true 1-2 punch. We were sweet with pegram and bam Morris in mid 90s. Until bam got caught with a truckload of weed (literally). What we saw with pitt this year with the RBs was special. Our pass offense would make a billy goat puke but having 2 RBs go over 1k is bad azz

 

[McKee Place]

I don't even understand why teams "run the wheels off" of their starters? Before he was injured Conner had like 250 carries, nobody else more than 20-30. Why not rotate guys in more? Like instead of 250-20, 170-100?

Other teams do rotate multiple guys. The Steelers under Tomlin seem to have the opposite philosophy. They seem to take weird pride they do that too. I seem to recall in the team's official super bowl video, they made a point to brag that they ran the wheels off Willie Parker.

 

[Pitt79]

Foster had 390 carries in 92. Basically retired 2 years later. It was a great season though.

Willie Parker too, he had 3-4 really good years, but they just wore him out, 300+ carries every year. In the end he only lasted I think 6 years total in the NFL.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

Willie Parker too, he had 3-4 really good years, but they just wore him out, 300+ carries every year. In the end he only lasted I think 6 years total in the NFL.

I was curious why they didn’t use our backup rb more after bell came back from suspension. Forget the dudes name, but he played first few games for Steelers and did well. Bell came back and we never saw him again.

Edit: deangelo. Forgot his name.

 

[MyNameisJoe]

You have a good point - but I think the answer comes in 2 parts.

The first is, I just don't think there are many "great" backs. The NFL is filled with a lot of high quality RB's, but no truly great talents. Everyone appears the same and there is no real drop off because, well - all the guys are the same.

The second part of that is the game has changed severely. Not many, if any, teams run the ball like the old days where the position was valued. Now, especially with the rule changes, you throw the ball 40 times a game+

 

[Pitt79]

I was curious why they didn’t use our backup rb more after bell came back from suspension. Forget the dudes name, but he played first few games for Steelers and did well. Bell came back and we never saw him again.

Edit: deangelo. Forgot his name.

DeAngelo Williams, and it was stupid not to use him more, he was a very proven veteran.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

RB's are a dime a dozen why spend big money on one when you can run a bunch of them through the line-up over time.

Ask Bellichik,DIon Lewis, and the string of RB's the Patriots have had!

I believe I heard its the lowest paid player in the Patriots organization.

It's like buying a car why spend big bucks on an expensive new car when you can find some great late models, leftovers, or a few new ones with one or two years on them that are cheaper than something new and perform great!

 

[WiseAndGlorious]

All that matters to stay consistently in the hunt is QB. Teams with good QBs locked in have the best shot. When was the last time a non-elite or at least franchise type QB won a Super Bowl? Trent Dilfer 2000? And even he had been a #1 overall draft pick. Also the 2002 Bucs QB wasn't really elite? Can't remember his name?

Well Foles was a back-up. And, Flacco, unless of course you consider him elite.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

The top paid running back in the NFL this year is the 135th best paid player overall (Shady McCoy).

So that says something. The market isn't perfect but it's pretty good data.

 

[Pitt79]

Well Foles was a back-up. And, Flacco, unless of course you consider him elite.

OK, Foles-but most of the regular season the QB was a top #1 pick QB. And I would consider Flacco a "franchise" type QB you could build around, a #1 pick, the guy started every game for around 10 years and put up decent numbers.

 

[wbrpanther]

Honest question. I don't watch the NFL much so I cant say but to me, it seems to be. Besides K and P, if I were fielding a team, I think I'd invest the least in a RB. This country produces such a vast oversupply of RB's, I just think there is so little drop off between a good NFL RB and a guy like Hall or Ollison, both of whom may not even make the NFL (I think they will). So, basically, I would go with a Hall or Ollison at league minimum for a few years then take the next Hall or Ollison in the 6th round.

If RB isn't the least important position, which is?

The fact that you can find serviceable running backs fairly easily doesn't mean the position is less important. It is terribly important to have a good running back.

 

[lilspainishflea]

RB is definitely the most fungible position. Look at the 10 most productive RBs in 2018: Gurley, CMC, Barkley, Kamara, Zeke, Conner, Melvin Gordon, White, Hunt, Mixon. What's the common denominator....ALL on their rookie deals except Gurley (who was signed for this year anyway and the Rams needlessly extended him). Of the 10 most productive, only 3 are also in the 10 highest paid (Gurley, Zeke, Barkley) at the position. High paid guys like Freeman, McCoy, Fournette, Miller, Duke Johnson, and Carlos Hyde are invisible this year. It makes absolutely no sense to pay these guys. Just like with your Ray Bans, buy the fake ones, lose them, and get replacements for $40 rather than the real thing for $100. They'll do the same job for a fraction of the cost.

 

[WiseAndGlorious]

Sounds weird but you’d rather have 2 avg backs than one really good one. I hope Steelers have that with JC and Samuels. We will see. You can’t say that about other positions. Two avg wrs over a good one h

But 2 decent backs will get you more wins then one really good one. Add in salary cap issues too and it def helps you.

That is a function of the cap strategy as much as the game. Ideally, I think you'd still rather have one McCoy or Gurley, but with a cap, if you can have two decent backs for half of their salary that allows $4,000,000-$8,000,000 to spend on other positions. Plus you aren't screwed if one guy is dinged up.

But obviously the RB salary distribution is affected by the shift to a passing league. Teams seem to view them more as another in a pool of receiving options. In general they are going pay more for the ones that can produce more yards per touch. If you look at YPC (not perfect, I know) and most years there might be 3-4 backs in the top 100 and none in the top 75 or so.

 

[pittdan77]

A good running game makes a team much better. JC might be a pro bowler but the Steelers offense is ranked 30th in rushing and it shows. In the five games the Steelers lost this season, they have 232 combined rushing yards. 46.4 yard average. If you think back, the ability to kill some clock in a couple of those games could have prevented a game winning drive by the other team.

 

[Farnox]

That is a function of the cap strategy as much as the game. Ideally, I think you'd still rather have one McCoy or Gurley, but with a cap, if you can have two decent backs for half of their salary that allows $4,000,000-$8,000,000 to spend on other positions. Plus you aren't screwed if one guy is dinged up.

But obviously the RB salary distribution is affected by the shift to a passing league. Teams seem to view them more as another in a pool of receiving options. In general they are going pay more for the ones that can produce more yards per touch. If you look at YPC (not perfect, I know) and most years there might be 3-4 backs in the top 100 and none in the top 75 or so.

This is the smart strategy in todays NFL.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

That is a function of the cap strategy as much as the game. Ideally, I think you'd still rather have one McCoy or Gurley, but with a cap, if you can have two decent backs for half of their salary that allows $4,000,000-$8,000,000 to spend on other positions. Plus you aren't screwed if one guy is dinged up.

But obviously the RB salary distribution is affected by the shift to a passing league. Teams seem to view them more as another in a pool of receiving options. In general they are going pay more for the ones that can produce more yards per touch. If you look at YPC (not perfect, I know) and most years there might be 3-4 backs in the top 100 and none in the top 75 or so.

For arguments' sake, if Hall and Ollison were the Steelers running backs next season instead of Conner/Ridley/NC State dude, how many wins does that cost them?

 

[WiseAndGlorious]

For arguments' sake, if Hall and Ollison were the Steelers running backs next season instead of Conner/Ridley/NC State dude, how many wins does that cost them?

What argument would you make for doing that? This year they are spending a hair over 1% of their cap on RBs at $1.9mm. Next year they still have Conner and Samuels for about $1.5mm total, and given the additional reps those two will have had they can afford to bring in a rookie FA or low pick so it should be about the same or possibly less. I'd say that they are getting great production for spending about 1% of cap on the position.

I have no idea what it would cost in wins. But you still can't just plug in any warm body. The position might be diminished in value, but there is still a value difference between backs based upon skill, experience and fit. Think of Steeler OLBs. They used to be able to find Harrison, Gildon, Porter, Lloyd, Woirlds, Woodley, Haggans in later rounds. But there were still Steven Conleys and Zo Jacksons that couldn't play. Now with a premium on those edge guys as 4-3 WDE, 3-4 OLBs, or some type of 9-tech they have struggled to find those guys.

RBs have gone the other way, but there is still a value of spending a 3rd round money on Conner as opposed to paying Bell. Or think how happy NO is to have Kamara on a 2nd or 3rd rd deal instead of having used a 1st and paying 1st round money.

 

[McKee Place]

What argument would you make for doing that? This year they are spending a hair over 1% of their cap on RBs at $1.9mm. Next year they still have Conner and Samuels for about $1.5mm total, and given the additional reps those two will have had they can afford to bring in a rookie FA or low pick so it should be about the same or possibly less. I'd say that they are getting great production for spending about 1% of cap on the position.

I have no idea what it would cost in wins. But you still can't just plug in any warm body. The position might be diminished in value, but there is still a value difference between backs based upon skill, experience and fit. Think of Steeler OLBs. They used to be able to find Harrison, Gildon, Porter, Lloyd, Woirlds, Woodley, Haggans in later rounds. But there were still Steven Conleys and Zo Jacksons that couldn't play. Now with a premium on those edge guys as 4-3 WDE, 3-4 OLBs, or some type of 9-tech they have struggled to find those guys.

RBs have gone the other way, but there is still a value of spending a 3rd round money on Conner as opposed to paying Bell. Or think how happy NO is to have Kamara on a 2nd or 3rd rd deal instead of having used a 1st and paying 1st round money.

It was only one game of course but the results with Samuel helps the "warm body" argument. He was a low pick, taken as more of a receiver, hadn't carried the ball much in college, yet ran wild against one of the NFLs best teams.

As much as I love JC and happy for his accolades, that performance by Samuel kind of watered it down.

 

[Parkview57]

Well, it really has been a similar situation since about 1970 at least. Good examples when comparing the two contemporaries ,the less talented one with a better team/QB had much more team success : Franco vs. O.J. , Barry Sanders vs. Emmitt Smith: Tony Dorsett with all his greatness had only one SB championship and it occurred with Roger Staubach at QB, W. Payton + C. Martin +L. Tomlinson + E. Dickerson + A. Peterson + O.J. + B. Sanders= 1 Super Bowl Championship, if you add in +Marcus Allen+Marshall Faulk + Jerome Bettis you can bring the total to 4, but that is a ton of years of very good to great running backs to get 4 SB champions.

 

[Pitt79]

For arguments' sake, if Hall and Ollison were the Steelers running backs next season instead of Conner/Ridley/NC State dude, how many wins does that cost them?

I wouldn't mind if they drafted Hall or Ollison with a late round pick or signed one of them as undrafted FAs to be honest.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

 

[McKee Place]

Cool charts. Assuming they have the same for FBS college football, can only imagine the loneliest outlier in the world world be the 2018 Pitt offense ... running all the time, even when down 25+ in the fourth quarter

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

Cool charts. Assuming they have the same for FBS college football, can only imagine the loneliest outlier in the world world be the 2018 Pitt offense ... running all the time, even when down 25+ in the fourth quarter

I think the college numbers are pretty different, though they might be skewing together a bit more lately as the air raid spreads. Part of what makes the NFL pass offenses effective is they can maintain those strong yards per attempt numbers WITHOUT throwing as many interceptions as were common in the 1950s-1990s passing game. Passing has essentially become "safe" in addition to efficient at the NFL level.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Fullback. But I guess he's a running back. But Fullback is pretty obsolete.

 

[WiseAndGlorious]

It was only one game of course but the results with Samuel helps the "warm body" argument. He was a low pick, taken as more of a receiver, hadn't carried the ball much in college, yet ran wild against one of the NFLs best teams.

As much as I love JC and happy for his accolades, that performance by Samuel kind of watered it down.

Samuels had 78 carries and 75 catches his senior year with 4 TD catches and 12 rushing. The kid played RB, TE, FB, slot, and even wildcat QB. He was taken because his versatility would allow them to use him in similar fashion to Bell. They specifically sought him out for that. Hardly a warm body. Their excellent OL will help whoever is in there, but it doesn't mean anyone can do it. That said, I was pleasantly surprised at how he ran Sunday and I have been a fan of the kid's game for a few years now.

 

[str61166]

It was only one game of course but the results with Samuel helps the "warm body" argument. He was a low pick, taken as more of a receiver, hadn't carried the ball much in college, yet ran wild against one of the NFLs best teams.

As much as I love JC and happy for his accolades, that performance by Samuel kind of watered it down.

Odd how the run game worked so well vs. New England but not in Oakland.

The Saints have I think the best run D? I have my doubts Samuels will thrive as much down there. Hope he does, and also hope he works on his pass protection like Conner has.