Are running backs really that devalued ???

[Omerta+ 1,206]

As a ravens fan we have always been a run first type of team and succeeded with it (Until Cam Cameron, but we wont even get started on that). That being said everybody is saying that this is a passing league. I am not saying I disagree or agree but I have noticed something. Looking at the past SB's while they have had at least serviceable running games if not good ones. Looking at the patriots who really dont run a lot they have been O an3 since they lost the D and what little game they had. They are the team that epitomizes they get out of it what they need out of it. I was watching the playoffs this year and noticed that all the teams but a few exceptions made concerted effort to run the ball. The bengals, The Texans, The Ravens, The Steeler's, and The Broncos all have balance or are running teams so to speak. The NFC the saints, The Falcons, The 9er's also make concerted efforts to run the ball,. So I looked at the SB and the team with the better running game won. Also looking back at teh Pack, they arent known for the running game but during that post season James starks decide he was going to be great. The Steelers and their success and so on.

 

So if this is the case then why is the running game going by the way side. I mean a great passing attack that spreads the D would benefit immensely from a good running game. The steelers have been successful with spreading and stretching the field and using stretch runs and things like that. The Texans who have had a good offense for a while use Foster the same way. So is the running back position really dying in leiu of the pass ? Crowd source here people.

[NaTaS+ 958]

The rushing attack is still a very important piece of any team. Some teams just do not have the talent to run the ball very effectively. Running backs have a short shelf life so in general a running back is not a value pick, the same can be said of a WR.

 

The QB is the field general one of the most important positions on the field, if not the most. With the league rules now-a-days, they're geared to be more friendly to a passing offense so teams with great QB's take advantage of that.

[oochymp 2,393]

I think the prevalence of committee systems is another major factor, looking at stats from 2001 compared to last year (ten year difference) teams ran the ball about the same amount, a handful of teams had over 30 rushes per game (five last year, six in 2001) and on the low end the fewest rushes any team had were 21.6 last year and 21.9 in 2001, so teams are still running the ball just as much, the difference is the breakdown of who gets carries, in 2001 14 RBs had 19 or more carries per game, last year only 3 had 19+ carries, Edgerrin James topped the list in 2001 with 25.2 carries per game, MJD and Foster tied for the top last season with 21.4, on the flip side 20 backs last year had 8-12 rushes per game compared to 10 in 2001, that trend is what has devalued the RB position, it's a lot easier to find someone who can take 10 or so carries a game than someone who can take 20+, and the demand these days is for backs who carry a lighter load.

[Milla4Prez63 678]

It is just too easy to find productive RBs and their productive lives in the NFL are incredibly short. As soon as you hit 30, your career in the NFL is pretty much done.

 

This argument has come up a lot with Buc fans because a lot of them really want Trent Richardson, but I just feel like picking a RB with a top 5 pick in today's NFL is kind of silly. They are devalued, and for some good reasons.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Definitely understand the shelf life but looking at every position on teh field there arent many long careers across the board. WR's, CB, S, LB's all have the same shelf life when it comes to their most productive years. So does that mean corners and WR's are less valued because if anything they are shooting up the boards like never before.

[RazorStar 4,025]

A few things to this. The individual carry your team on it's back, runningback is a dying form. More and more teams arerealizing you can get more production by using multiple players to fill the position, as it keeps both guys fresh. Secondly, teams that give up on the running game do not win championships. The thing about running is that it'snot important to run successfully as it is to commit to it, and give your offense versatility. The Giants couldn't run for shit last year, but they didn't give up on it. So no, I wouldn't say it's a passing league, but a great QB is a great benefactor to success, more so than a great runningback.It doesn't devalue the running game, it just makes the individual less important in that regard.

[BC 331]

I don't think the value of the position is less. In fact, if you are able to find a relatively consistant and mostly healthy running back, such as Matt Forte, Arian Foster, Maurice Jones Drew, Adrian Peterson, Ray Rice etc etc, that particular player's value is morevaluable than other skill position players. However, I feel that due to the unreliability of players who play this particular position in general, based on injury and average career length, the more popular top draft selections are positions other than running back. NFL teams have justified reason to expect a lesser return on their investment if they invest a high pick or lots of money in a flashy running back, which is why you see many more later round running back selections. You can thank Mike Shanahan for this analogy; he was one of the first coaches to figure that out. Hell, the average shelf life for the Mike Shanahan running back is about 2.5 games, and he runs them into the fucking ground in that span. The fresher and more agile the pair of legs, the better.

 

IF there was a way to find that rare exception, your Marshall Faulks and your Ladanian Tomlinsons of the world who end up being every down, injury free, top flight, carry the team on their back type runningback for 8 or more seasons, I believe that #1 overall pick in the season that given running back came out, that pick would carry more value than even this years first overall pick. Having the luxury of obtaining a running back of that stature is so valuable and rare, there probably isn't a trade offer good enough to pry that kind of selection away from any team.

 

In conclusion, to answer the question, it isn't the lack value of having a top, sustained running attack, but the success rate created by the nature of the game.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Running back has devalued imo because anymore teams aren't using that "franchise" running back. Now it's two or three running back tandems. Of course there is always that main guy, but most teams are using a committee.