I see some really interesting ideas here. I just don't see how things can change without the amount of punishment RBs take changing. Their careers will be shorter, regardless, no matter what other formations, roster, or contract changes happen. It is still a position that involves trading their physical health for money. I may be at the other end of the coaching reaction cycle that maybe we'll see some natural changes. By that, I mean that coaches will get faster, lighter players to counteract passing games until someone can see that to beat those light defenses, they can use power offense. Right now, it seems that everyone is trying to outscore the high-powered offenses. Tennessee tried with King Henry, but it wasn't successful enough to spread to other teams, and Henrys don't grow on trees (and like your article states, are becoming less common). I say all that to not be a negative Nancy, but to say that something fundamental about the rules of tackle football may have to change, like taking the big hits out, to increase the length of their careers before RBs as we know them can be saved from extinction. It is just the nature of the game of hitting a guy with a ball. We might just be seeing a glimpse of what the new game is going to look like, and the RB position will become just a player that is a special teams/practice squad level player who can only make the team by being a backup LB or an RB (as the most talented youth RBs move to other positions) and are just used as blockers, distractions, decoys, and short yardage pounders. Nick Bellores.
From that moment forward, I set out to prove that running backs DO matter. I don’t even care if I’m right or wrong, I just care that rooting against players because they play a certain position is right.
I kept rereading this paragraph, and I wonder if you meant to write "wrong" at the end instead of "right". Not criticizing, just checking to see if my confusion was warranted
It’s a confusing sentence and I knew it when I wrote it and read it again. I should have re written the sentence. My intention is that it is “right” to root against people who root against running backs, which is wrong. Very confusing.
It can be a confusing (conflicting?) thing to root for people to succeed in a league where they have to compete with other people for jobs and career success. When reading along, I was thinking that I felt like it's right to root for people, but maybe not necessarily root for players, separating the person from the player, if that makes any sense.
As a result, I can root against a player whom I can't see because of his helmet, but ultimately I don't root for a person to fail at their chosen profession, especially since it's physically dangerous. We love a complex game!
I do agree that we should root against people (ones with a platform) that root against RBs. They are undermining the game and I am not for that. I loved this piece.
When the Seahawks drafted Charbonnet, and the internet had its expected response, I remember thinking to myself "honestly, it's not a terrible idea to keep taking the top RB talent in the 2nd, use them for 3 or 4 years, and replace them"
And then I just sat with how brutal that thought was. Every other player the team drafts, I'm crossing my fingers that they'll be a superstar, or at least a long-term special teamer or backup. And when they took one of the top running backs in the draft, my mind went straight to "He'll be useful for 3 or 4 years".
I don't even consider myself someone who's bought in to the "running backs don't matter" narrative, but it was stark to see just how much I've come to view them as a disposable commodity. Thinking that the Seahawks might just be outfoxing the league by rotating through a series of 2nd round picks at less than $2 million per year.
It felt like smart football. And also made me feel dirty as a person.
I don’t have a solution, but you’ve clearly identified a problem. The league has consciously devalued the most exciting position in football. A great throw and catch is fun to see, but nothing compares to a “Beastquake” type of run. The NFL continues to use highlights of Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, Franco Harris, Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, et al in promotional videos. Last season they used a clip like that before almost every game. I don’t remember the last time I saw Ray Nitscke, Jack Hamm, Ken Easley, or even Lawrence Taylor used in a similar fashion.
You're right about the joy of watching exciting runs. I also think fantasy football has warped the fan's sense of what's right and wrong here. I stopped playing fantasy in 2013 because I didn't like what it was doing to me as an NFL fan. I just want to be a fan of watching the games and following the sport for what it is, not the reactions that come with "my running back got hurt again" etc. I think people forget that the names are people.
I'd worry there that even if there were rule changes to force the running back position back into relevance gameplay wise, that the damage has been done in terms of seeing them as a replaceable commodity.
You get a guy, burn him at both ends for 4 years, and send him on his way. I suppose if the talent pool in college keeps dropping you might see more of a premium put on guys who actually produce in the league, but the mindset of "you can get a guy in the 3rd round that can do the same as every other guy" is unfortunately ingrained.
After sleeping on it, I wonder if we've both (all?) over-simplified the problem.
What we want to do (in this idiot's opinion) is to encourage players to balance the financial aspect against the long-term consequences of repeated injury (whether high-grade injury or low-grade injury). We want them to play the position, but not to the point where they won't be able to chase their grandkids around the living room.
That would take a restructured insurance program. It would probably have to be graded by draft position (because of the higher income), possibly by player position, probably by injury history, and probably by snaps (or, possibly, accelerometers embedded in pads and helmets). It would take a good Actuarial to work it out. Perhaps we've got one who reads comments?
Counterintuitively, perhaps, the payout would want to _decrease_ with the length of career to balance the motivation, and would somehow need to be medically "certified". In any case, it would have to cover (for example) the potential for CTE and stenosis.
I really enjoyed watching Earl Campbell run. I really hate seeing him roll.
I like where your heads at, because the NFL will definitely need people who are smarter than me to figure out the problem. But is anyone up there even acknowledging that this is a problem?
Me thinking out loud after a couple glasses of wine: the NFL should have a a 'rookie contract pool' that pays out (for offensive players) on value to their team that has no impact on the team's cap space. An "entertainment bonus" if you will, based on touches, yards, "explosive plays" (which would be different for RBs and WRs). RBs, who can usually be productive right from year 1, would benefit more than WR or TE players. The pool would be large enough to add 7 figure bonuses to 'top' performers.
Give a Player who contributes massively a set bonus outside of the cap to reward him. For me played snaps is more than enough because if you're valuable enough to be a Starter it's great for everyone.
Great article - Now I'm sure I'll get slammed for this, But Marshawn was not /is not Adrian Peterson!
In fact that's absolutely true. Just look at the Playoff stats. Completely different Type of RB.
Great article.
I see some really interesting ideas here. I just don't see how things can change without the amount of punishment RBs take changing. Their careers will be shorter, regardless, no matter what other formations, roster, or contract changes happen. It is still a position that involves trading their physical health for money. I may be at the other end of the coaching reaction cycle that maybe we'll see some natural changes. By that, I mean that coaches will get faster, lighter players to counteract passing games until someone can see that to beat those light defenses, they can use power offense. Right now, it seems that everyone is trying to outscore the high-powered offenses. Tennessee tried with King Henry, but it wasn't successful enough to spread to other teams, and Henrys don't grow on trees (and like your article states, are becoming less common). I say all that to not be a negative Nancy, but to say that something fundamental about the rules of tackle football may have to change, like taking the big hits out, to increase the length of their careers before RBs as we know them can be saved from extinction. It is just the nature of the game of hitting a guy with a ball. We might just be seeing a glimpse of what the new game is going to look like, and the RB position will become just a player that is a special teams/practice squad level player who can only make the team by being a backup LB or an RB (as the most talented youth RBs move to other positions) and are just used as blockers, distractions, decoys, and short yardage pounders. Nick Bellores.
From the article:
From that moment forward, I set out to prove that running backs DO matter. I don’t even care if I’m right or wrong, I just care that rooting against players because they play a certain position is right.
I kept rereading this paragraph, and I wonder if you meant to write "wrong" at the end instead of "right". Not criticizing, just checking to see if my confusion was warranted
It’s a confusing sentence and I knew it when I wrote it and read it again. I should have re written the sentence. My intention is that it is “right” to root against people who root against running backs, which is wrong. Very confusing.
I am tracking with your thought, now.
It can be a confusing (conflicting?) thing to root for people to succeed in a league where they have to compete with other people for jobs and career success. When reading along, I was thinking that I felt like it's right to root for people, but maybe not necessarily root for players, separating the person from the player, if that makes any sense.
As a result, I can root against a player whom I can't see because of his helmet, but ultimately I don't root for a person to fail at their chosen profession, especially since it's physically dangerous. We love a complex game!
I do agree that we should root against people (ones with a platform) that root against RBs. They are undermining the game and I am not for that. I loved this piece.
When the Seahawks drafted Charbonnet, and the internet had its expected response, I remember thinking to myself "honestly, it's not a terrible idea to keep taking the top RB talent in the 2nd, use them for 3 or 4 years, and replace them"
And then I just sat with how brutal that thought was. Every other player the team drafts, I'm crossing my fingers that they'll be a superstar, or at least a long-term special teamer or backup. And when they took one of the top running backs in the draft, my mind went straight to "He'll be useful for 3 or 4 years".
I don't even consider myself someone who's bought in to the "running backs don't matter" narrative, but it was stark to see just how much I've come to view them as a disposable commodity. Thinking that the Seahawks might just be outfoxing the league by rotating through a series of 2nd round picks at less than $2 million per year.
It felt like smart football. And also made me feel dirty as a person.
I don’t have a solution, but you’ve clearly identified a problem. The league has consciously devalued the most exciting position in football. A great throw and catch is fun to see, but nothing compares to a “Beastquake” type of run. The NFL continues to use highlights of Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, Franco Harris, Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, et al in promotional videos. Last season they used a clip like that before almost every game. I don’t remember the last time I saw Ray Nitscke, Jack Hamm, Ken Easley, or even Lawrence Taylor used in a similar fashion.
You're right about the joy of watching exciting runs. I also think fantasy football has warped the fan's sense of what's right and wrong here. I stopped playing fantasy in 2013 because I didn't like what it was doing to me as an NFL fan. I just want to be a fan of watching the games and following the sport for what it is, not the reactions that come with "my running back got hurt again" etc. I think people forget that the names are people.
Another possibility is to ban offensive sets with more than four total receivers.
I'd worry there that even if there were rule changes to force the running back position back into relevance gameplay wise, that the damage has been done in terms of seeing them as a replaceable commodity.
You get a guy, burn him at both ends for 4 years, and send him on his way. I suppose if the talent pool in college keeps dropping you might see more of a premium put on guys who actually produce in the league, but the mindset of "you can get a guy in the 3rd round that can do the same as every other guy" is unfortunately ingrained.
I take your point. My thinking is that since this issue came about because of rule changes, rule changes are a way to address it.
Would be interesting to see a league that did anything like this.
Positions with a higher rate of early, injury-forced retirement could receive a supplemental pension from the league?
No wine was injured in the production of this idea.
Anything that lets running backs know that they'll be rewarded for being warn out early in their careers would help.
After sleeping on it, I wonder if we've both (all?) over-simplified the problem.
What we want to do (in this idiot's opinion) is to encourage players to balance the financial aspect against the long-term consequences of repeated injury (whether high-grade injury or low-grade injury). We want them to play the position, but not to the point where they won't be able to chase their grandkids around the living room.
That would take a restructured insurance program. It would probably have to be graded by draft position (because of the higher income), possibly by player position, probably by injury history, and probably by snaps (or, possibly, accelerometers embedded in pads and helmets). It would take a good Actuarial to work it out. Perhaps we've got one who reads comments?
Counterintuitively, perhaps, the payout would want to _decrease_ with the length of career to balance the motivation, and would somehow need to be medically "certified". In any case, it would have to cover (for example) the potential for CTE and stenosis.
I really enjoyed watching Earl Campbell run. I really hate seeing him roll.
I like where your heads at, because the NFL will definitely need people who are smarter than me to figure out the problem. But is anyone up there even acknowledging that this is a problem?
It's not a problem until it become monetized
Almost certainly would have to be pushed by the union. Ownership would never want to fund anything like that.
Me thinking out loud after a couple glasses of wine: the NFL should have a a 'rookie contract pool' that pays out (for offensive players) on value to their team that has no impact on the team's cap space. An "entertainment bonus" if you will, based on touches, yards, "explosive plays" (which would be different for RBs and WRs). RBs, who can usually be productive right from year 1, would benefit more than WR or TE players. The pool would be large enough to add 7 figure bonuses to 'top' performers.
Nice i was thinking about something Like that.
Give a Player who contributes massively a set bonus outside of the cap to reward him. For me played snaps is more than enough because if you're valuable enough to be a Starter it's great for everyone.
Doug, great thinking. It's certainly a fresh idea.
I like it! Certainly could be good to start thinking outside the box.
Or at least outside the box wine lol.