Quote
JYB
. If analytics (or management or just basic market reality) have assessed that the running back position is less important than it once was, then how can it be said that they are not getting what they are worth?.
or at least incomplete.
What are the analytics for blocking? For touching the ball more than anyone except the QB?
This position value is overblown---just so people understand---overused (not worthless) but they make no sense.
Just you you mind and not analytics--
in what world is Cutis Samual worth more year year than Derrick Henry?
Where the top RB would be like the 18th highest paid WR?
So, by using metrics owners are saying "value" is that which a Henry or Gurley in his prime is better than a waiver wire back.
Okay, this would be for Rams fans---would Rams have been ANY good with an average running back in the start of
the McVay era? I don't know what an example of what metrics people call average or waiver wire RB back then but here
you think Rams win with an average back?
I don't.
So that's the answer to your question--metrics alone are not a fair way to evaluate RB play.
My opinion is owners are using metrics to depress RB salaries. They have the leverage right now
and the RBs have none. So the real-world results are the Giants won't offer Barkley what Hunter Renfroe makes.
It's unfair on it's face.
Also, I tend to side with players. I saw what the owners did to players when it game to earned benefits--disability,
even specific benefits --- docs deny, players have to fight to get earned benefits. Former players were promised
benefits by NFLPA when the FA deals came then they never came...
When money is involved those with it will cheat...power corrupts.
Anyway, reasonable people can disagree. I simply reject the premise that is being used to determine "value" and
I also reject the premise that the NFL is like any other industry.
Because of those things I have different opinion about this matter.
