-
Has the RB Position Lost it's Value?...................
Has the RB position lost its value in the NFL?
It's a passing league now; why invest big money in RBs? Warren McCarty
June 14, 2012, 03:00 PM EST
While the questions linger about Matt Forte’s contract situation, while coaches and fans ooh and ahh over Trent Richardson in shorts, and the rumblings get louder from Ray Rice and MJD about wanting new fat contracts, it seems pretty clear to me that teams are wise not to invest significant chunks of their salary cap in the running back position.
Not only is that a gamble due to the pounding those guys take in today’s NFL, but investing heavily in a franchise, work-horse runningback simply does not equate to wins on the football field. Not in today’s NFL.
Those days are over, and they aren’t coming back. I’m all for balance in terms of the offensive attack, but the ground-oriented offenses simply don’t work anymore if the goal is to win the Super Bowl.
Forte is looking for a long-term deal in Chicago, but is he worth the investment?
Football purists are going to fire right back and talk about how the NFL is cyclical and that the NFL will get back to running the ball, the Wildcat will be hot again in New York, and coaches will try to emulate Jeff Fisher’s approach and grind out wins.
In reality, the rules have changed. The college game has changed. The athletes have changed. I can look to several prime examples to prove my point:
Let’s start in Minnesota. Adrian Peterson has ran over, through, and around NFL defenders for five incredible seasons now. Highlight after highlight after highlight. But other than the magical 2009 season with Bret Favre slinging the ball all over the field and Sydney Rice having a career year, Peterson and his Vikings have been mediocre. In his five seasons, the Vikings have made the playoffs only twice. In 2008, they got bounced at home by the Eagles in the first round. In 2009, they won their first round game, and then took the Saints to overtime in the SuperDome before falling in defeat. And that’s the extent of it in terms of post-season glory and success for Adrian Peterson.
Outside of Favre’s 4,000+ yard passing season in 2009, the Vikings have been below-average throwing the football, with very few legit weapons in the passing game, and they’ve failed to win football games. The fact that they’ve had a workhorse in Peterson has been irrelevant to wins and losses for Minnesota.
The same can be said for Chris Johnson in Tennessee. He took a great deal of criticism for a sub-par performance last season (which I believe to be unfair). Fans and my colleagues in the media continuously question whether or not he can return to his explosive form from 2009 when he ran for 2006 yards and added 503 yards receiving. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if he returns to that level of production or not. Tennessee didn’t even make the playoffs in 2009.
Chris Johnson played all 16 regular season games in 2009, 2010, and 2011 for the Titans. He didn’t appear in any post-season games for Tennessee, because they never made the playoffs in the last three years. That’s right. For all of Chris Johnson’s heroics, his team has gone 8-8, 6-10, and 9-7 over last 3 years. They’ve been in the middle of the pack in terms of throwing the football, and thus they’ve been a middle of the pack football team. Tennessee lacks special players in the passing game, and that certainly reflects in how Chris Johnson performs on Sundays. It also reflects in the win-loss column at the end of the season.
I shook my head in disgust when the Browns made the trade to move up one slot to select Alabama runningback Trent Richardson in April. I’m not a Richardson or Browns hater. I think Richardson can be a great NFL runningback and I’d love to see the Browns become a contender.
But Richardson’s production will have no bearing on whether or not Cleveland wins football games. In 2010, Cleveland had Peyton Hillis blowing up defenders on his way to a 1,177 yard season on the ground (and 477 yards receiving through the air). He scored 13 touchdowns that season, and Cleveland went 5-11. We all saw Hillis drop way off in terms of his attitude, production on the field, and what he brought to the team each day in 2011. Again, it didn’t matter. Cleveland was still awful, going 3-13. They couldn’t throw the ball in 2010, and their record reflected that inability. Those problems continued into 2011, and the mediocrity continued. That won’t change this year with Richardson taking carries.
Whether it’s Colt McCoy, Brandon Weeden, or Seneca Wallace under center for the Browns, they still have no tight end and no playmakers at receiver. They’ll still be dead last in the AFC North, regardless of how much of a moose Trent Richardson proves to be.
Whether we like it or not, the NFL is a passing league now, and the importance of the runningback position has been forever diminished. Win/Loss records certainly reflect that fact.
Warren McCarty is the founder of My Passion is Football
Follow Warren on Twitter: @mpifradio
Last edited by soulman; 06-14-2012 at 04:24 PM.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. 
Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
-
I don't know about "forever diminished" but for now it has been. You never know what changes may come about in the future that will make it more important again.
It's a shame Matt Forte is caught up in this change in trends but never the less he is whether he likes it or not. I think what it boils down to is not so much what Matt Forte is worth or even what he believes he's worth. The simple fact is the Bears aren't gonna offer him more money than he's worth to them and that sum is shrinking not expanding despite the foolishness of some teams to over pay.
If it wasn't a passing league right now the Bears would never have traded for Marshall. They would have given that $9.3 mil per year to Forte instead. It may not be fair but it is what it is.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
Those days are over, and they aren’t coming back. I’m all for balance in terms of the offensive attack, but the ground-oriented offenses simply don’t work anymore if the goal is to win the Super Bowl.
I'm not sure any NFL team is saying they're using a ground attack at the expense of the passing attack. There are no "3 yards and a cloud of dust" type of teams anymore. At least I can't think of any. Everyone wants to pass effectively. So the article is kind of stupid IMHO.
It's not an "either or" situation. Obviously you don't over-invest in any position on the roster, and try to get the best overall team talent to win a Super Bowl. Yes, it's a passing game first now.
But that doesn't mean you don't need the ABILITY to effectively run the football too. It is still important to be able to run in certain situations effectively (first downs, goal line situations, running out the clock with a lead late in the game, helping with time-of-possession to keep the OTHER team's offense off of the field & to rest YOUR defense, etc etc etc. Perhaps the MOST important aspect of having a decent run game is to keep opposing defenses honest. If you are a "one trick pony" offense, you will eventually LOSE important games NEEDLESSLY. It's just one more weapon. Having the best weapons to kill defenses is a "good thing" not a liability.
You may not need an Adrian Peterson, but you do need a decent level of talent at the RB position.
The team with the best & most powerful array of weapons is the team that you want to have each year. Yes, one-trick-pony teams CAN win. But that is never the "ideal" but just a "necessary evil" sometimes.
Last edited by JustAnotherBearsFan99; 06-14-2012 at 04:40 PM.
Brian Urlacher
Thanks For The Memories
-
High Fives / Like - 2 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
I don't know. What about having a small lead and needing to run the clock out? I still think the running game is a NEED. But you still need a balanced team, even an above average Def the win in this league. Yes the rules are now in favor of passing, but the need to run is still there.
-
Originally Posted by
soulman 
If it wasn't a passing league right now the Bears would never have traded for Marshall. They would have given that $9.3 mil per year to Forte instead. It may not be fair but it is what it is.
I agree with everything in your post Soul. And the article is good for discussion here on the message board.
But the "ideal" if possible, is to sign a Forte AND have a Marshall. It takes a lot of GM skill to balance out a roster with the best possible array of weapons, but that is the ideal. You don't need to sacrifice your passing game at the expense of having the league's best RB. But you can have a Forte-class weapon and still have a solid passing offense. We will have both this season, unless Forte sits the whole year. But I think he'll play.
I'll be honest. I thought that article was stupid. Kind of over simplifying the real world situation in the NFL. Some of the article was simply stating the obvious. Must be a slow news day in sports.
p.s. I'm in your area of the country this week with my family. We're outside of Estes Park, we rented a cabin on a mountain. Ha, no cornfields for miles 
.
Last edited by JustAnotherBearsFan99; 06-14-2012 at 04:55 PM.
Brian Urlacher
Thanks For The Memories
-
I'm sure things will change in time. These trends seem to be cyclical. Thata aside, RBs are still getting paid a heck of a lot of money. Of course those clowns don't think so because of the salary for other positions, but its still a lot of money.
-
Originally Posted by
JustAnotherBearsFan99 I'm not sure any NFL team is saying they're using a ground attack at the expense of the passing attack. There are no "3 yards and a cloud of dust" type of teams anymore. At least I can't think of any. Everyone wants to pass effectively. So the article is kind of stupid IMHO.
It's not an "either or" situation. Obviously you don't over-invest in any position on the roster, and try to get the best overall team talent to win a Super Bowl. Yes, it's a passing game first now.
But that doesn't mean you don't need the ABILITY to effectively run the football too. It is still important to be able to run in certain situations effectively (first downs, goal line situations, running out the clock with a lead late in the game, helping with time-of-possession to keep the OTHER team's offense off of the field & to rest YOUR defense, etc etc etc. Perhaps the MOST important aspect of having a decent run game is to keep opposing defenses honest. If you are a "one trick pony" offense, you will eventually LOSE important games NEEDLESSLY. It's just one more weapon. Having the best weapons to kill defenses is a "good thing" not a liability.
You may not need an Adrian Peterson, but you do need a decent level of talent at the RB position.
The team with the best & most powerful array of weapons is the team that you want to have each year. Yes, one-trick-pony teams CAN win. But that is never the "ideal" but just a "necessary evil" sometimes.
I agree completely. Yes, RB values are down, BUT balance is STILL more important than either of the individual parts. The game IS more of a passing game than it was 30 years ago, but if you have no running game, it's still too easy for defenses to key on individual components. Well stated 99.
The Greatest form of revenge is MASSIVE success.
-
Again I'll point out basic strategy, Rules now favor QB/WR's in how D's can defend or attack them meaning that the best way to stop the QB/WR combo is to have a way to keep them off the field. Best way to do that....the run game. Ya it hasn't changed yet, and it doesn't mean you need the ELITE rb, but it does mean you need the competent run game. And it does mean that RB's will regain their value sooner then later.
Look back to this past year as a perfect example. Balt(did it w/the same way they've done it for years D and run)/SF(beat NO's who had the better qb/wr's)/Hou(on it's 3rd qb passed Cincy and held it's own vs Balt)/NY(beat GB and NE the best passing O's in the game). Common to all of them balanced O's that can pass and run as well as dominant D's that sack and hurry the qb, even if they don't get to. And they did it 2 years ago also. So although you don't need an "elite" rb, you don't need an "elite" QB or WR's either. I don't look at Manning as elite; at least not as elite as Brady/Rodgers. I don't look at their WR's as elite as either of those two teams groups either.
What you do need is a O that can run or pass and attack the weaknesses of the D they are facing on a given week.
Last edited by Riczaj01; 06-14-2012 at 06:12 PM.
-
High Fives / Like - 3 BEAR DOWN!, 1 Dislikes
-
Sooner or later there will be a team lauded for running the ball b/c they also can defend the pass so well and control both the tempo and the dynamic.
Arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics, even if you win your still messed up.
Restore the roar!
-
High Fives / Like - 2 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by
Riczaj01 Again I'll point out basic strategy, Rules now favor QB/WR's in how D's can defend or attack them meaning that the best way to stop the QB/WR combo is to have a way to keep them off the field. Best way to do that....the run game. Ya it hasn't changed yet, and it doesn't mean you need the ELITE rb, but it does mean you need the competent run game. And it does mean that RB's will regain their value sooner then later.
Look back to this past year as a perfect example. Balt(did it w/the same way they've done it for years D and run)/SF(beat NO's who had the better qb/wr's)/Hou(on it's 3rd qb passed Cincy and held it's own vs Balt)/NY(beat GB and NE the best passing O's in the game). Common to all of them balanced O's that can pass and run as well as dominant D's that sack and hurry the qb, even if they don't get to. And they did it 2 years ago also. So although you don't need an "elite" rb, you don't need an "elite" QB or WR's either. I don't look at Manning as elite; at least not as elite as Brady/Rodgers. I don't look at their WR's as elite as either of those two teams groups either.
What you do need is a O that can run or pass and attack the weaknesses of the D they are facing on a given week.
Manning is elite. 2 SB trophies and being instrumental in those runs makes you elite.
-
High Fives / Like - 0 BEAR DOWN!, 1 Dislikes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
