Are Running Backs Fungible? (They are NFTs)

[bphi11ips]

No one should have been surprised in 2014 when ESPN named Arkansas as "Running Back U" for the 2000's.  Fred Talley, Cedric Cobbs and Darren McFadden were First Team All-SEC.  Darren McFadden and Felix Jones were first round draft picks.  Cobbs went in the second round, Knile Davis in the fourth, and Johnathan Williams and Alex Collins went in the fifth. Peyton Hillis and Kiero Small were seventh round picks. Rawleigh Williams, III was definitely destined for the draft had it not been for his career ending injury. 

I've read with interest the attitude most seem to have concerning the loss of RWIII.  Most here, plus journalists like Mike Irwin, Barrett Sallee and Booger McFarland, don't seem to think it's a big deal.  I wonder if that's because of the perception that Arkansas is truly Running Back U and has great depth at running back, whether it's due to Brett Bielema's track record of producing multiple thousand yard rushers, or whether it's due in large part to the notion that running backs have become fungible.  My guess is it's a combination of the three, but the last possibility is an interesting one.  I'm curious as to why running backs have recently become so devalued.  I believe that part of it is the evolution of the pro game, and part of it is perception. 

There is no question that the 2000's have not been kind to running backs at the professional level.  Here are some draft numbers over time:

1980 - Five running backs were drafted in the first round.  Billy Sims was the number 1 overall pick.
1990 - Six running backs went in the first round.  Blair Thomas went at number 2.
2000 - Five first round picks.  Jamal Lewis number 5.
2010 - Three.  CJ Spiller number 9.
2015 - Two.  Todd Gurley number 10.
2016 - One.  Ezekiel Elliot number 4.
2017 - Two.  Leonard Fournette number 4.

The NFL has been a QB league since Sammy Baugh, but running backs like Jim Brown, OJ Simpson, Franco Harris, John Riggins, Marcus Allen, Eric Dickerson, Tony Dorsett, Jerome Bettis, Thurman Thomas, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith and Eddie George were difference makers.  BIG difference makers.  Adrian Peterson is viewed perhaps as the best running back of the last decade, but Ezekial Elliott made a HUGE difference in the Dallas Cowboys as a rookie.  DeMarco Murray and Derrick Henry had a big impact for the Titans last year.

So - have running backs become plug-and-play, next-man-up players, or are they still as uniquely valuable as they once were?  Has the game changed that much, or is it our perception of running backs that has changed?   

     

[MuskogeeHogFan]

No one should have been surprised in 2014 when ESPN named Arkansas as "Running Back U" for the 2000's.  Fred Talley, Cedric Cobbs and Darren McFadden were First Team All-SEC.  Darren McFadden and Felix Jones were first round draft picks.  Cobbs went in the second round, Knile Davis in the fourth, and Johnathan Williams and Alex Collins went in the fifth. Peyton Hillis and Kiero Small were seventh round picks. Rawleigh Williams, III was definitely destined for the draft had it not been for his career ending injury. 

I've read with interest the attitude most seem to have concerning the loss of RWIII.  Most here, plus journalists like Mike Irwin, Barrett Sallee and Booger McFarland, don't seem to think it's a big deal.  I wonder if that's because of the perception that Arkansas is truly Running Back U and has great depth at running back, whether it's due to Brett Bielema's track record of producing multiple thousand yard rushers, or whether it's due in large part to the notion that running backs have become fungible.  My guess is it's a combination of the three, but the last possibility is an interesting one.  I'm curious as to why running backs have recently become so devalued.  I believe that part of it is the evolution of the pro game, and part of it is perception. 

There is no question that the 2000's have not been kind to running backs at the professional level.  Here are some draft numbers over time:

1980 - Five running backs were drafted in the first round.  Billy Sims was the number 1 overall pick.
1990 - Six running backs went in the first round.  Blair Thomas went at number 2.
2000 - Five first round picks.  Jamal Lewis number 5.
2010 - Three.  CJ Spiller number 9.
2015 - Two.  Todd Gurley number 10.
2016 - One.  Ezekiel Elliot number 4.
2017 - Two.  Leonard Fournette number 4.

The NFL has been a QB league since Sammy Baugh, but running backs like Jim Brown, OJ Simpson, Franco Harris, John Riggins, Marcus Allen, Eric Dickerson, Tony Dorsett, Jerome Bettis, Thurman Thomas, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith and Eddie George were difference makers.  BIG difference makers.  Adrian Peterson is viewed perhaps as the best running back of the last decade, but Ezekial Elliott made a HUGE difference in the Dallas Cowboys as a rookie.  DeMarco Murray and Derrick Henry had a big impact for the Titans last year.

So - have running backs become plug-and-play, next-man-up players, or are they still as uniquely valuable as they once were?  Has the game changed that much, or is it our perception of running backs that has changed?   

     

As to whether RB's are fungible, the answer is easy if you happen to be a program that has one truly talented RB and the #2 is not quite as talented. Now if you have a great reputation as a school that produces great RB's that can get to the NFL and by virtue of that you have signed a lot of talented RB's that are all lined up in a row waiting their turn, then the term "fungible" might apply. But generally speaking I would say that at the college level with regard to excellent RB's, the term "fungible" probably doesn't apply in the vast majority of cases.

[Oklahawg]

RBs have a very short shelf life. They tend to get used up and discarded in the NFL. It is why I have not been bothered by those who leave early - go get your paycheck before an injury robs you of your career.

I think we have the running and catching parts of this covered. I question whether we have the blocking part of things ready-to-go.

[LZH]

+10000 for making everyone look up a new word....(except me, of course).

[bphi11ips]

RBs have a very short shelf life. They tend to get used up and discarded in the NFL. It is why I have not been bothered by those who leave early - go get your paycheck before an injury robs you of your career.

I agree that running backs should leave early when they can because they do have a short shelf life.  What I don't understand is why they have come to be perceived as fungible.  I do believe the Mel Kipers and Adam Schefters of the world have put more pressure on GMs to pick players based on "measurables" and trendy positions rather than on football skills and what it really takes to play winning football.  It takes a running game to make the playoffs, generally speaking.

As I've said since he was a junior in high school, RWIII was a special back.  You don't put up the gaudy high school numbers and video where he did he did otherwise.  For some reason he was undervalued by the recruiting services, but he proved his ability last year.  RWIIIs don't grow on trees.  Yet, many think anyone can step in and gain the same yards he would have this year.  There's reason to believe Whaley can, but Whaley is a different back than RWIII.  He needs a crease the way Knile Davis did.  His per carry average was the same as RWIII's, but he had some long runs that padded it, e.g., 9 carries for 136 yards against Alcorn State.  RWIII was more apt to make something out of nothing. 

I share your concern about pass pro, but with one true sophomore and two freshmen as the likely top 3 backs (I think Hammonds highest and best use is in the slot), what are ya gonna do? 

[Tejano Jawg]

RBs have a very short shelf life. They tend to get used up and discarded in the NFL. It is why I have not been bothered by those who leave early - go get your paycheck before an injury robs you of your career.

I think we have the running and catching parts of this covered. I question whether we have the blocking part of things ready-to-go.

True, we'll never see another great "senior" running back. We almost did with Jonathan Williams.

Until Rawleigh hung them up, I really thought we were ooching our way to having Bama-like depth. A bunch of (mostly big) running backs who have some speed and moves. Then, throw in a really fast guy occasionally. What RWIII had was All-SEC-caliber versatility...then everyone else could fall in line behind him per the situation. That was going to be a great formula for 2017.

As much as I like the rest of the guys, do we really know what we have? So to Okie's last point—the o-line—I would not question our RBs for a second if I knew our line was totally solid. Our o-line play last year was deflating at times. This season, if they can open holes and keep Austin from getting hit, we'll have one of the top couple O's in the conference.

[str8volfan]

OK, I'll ask the question that everyone else is scared to...
WTH does fungible mean?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

OK, I'll ask the question that everyone else is scared to...
WTH does fungible mean?

Google my friend, Google.

[str8volfan]

Google my friend, Google.

too lazy

[PonderinHog]

OK, I'll ask the question that everyone else is scared to...
WTH does fungible mean?

Ask LZH or Eli Whitney.

[bennyl08]

http://drafthistory.com/index.php/positions/rb

From the above link, you can see a clear devaluing of the position in the NFL. Total number of draft picks for the position really dropped for a while but have largely flattened out. Perhaps a bit of a uptick in recent years but not much.

However, despite the total number taken in the draft being about the same over the past 20 years or so, the number taken early in the top 3 and first round has continued to decline. However, the decline hasn't been as sharp.

[LRRandy]

OK, I'll ask the question that everyone else is scared to...
WTH does fungible mean?

i think it's like jock itch. Probably mostly on the feet and toes. Surprising that these guys think it only happens to running backs.

[bphi11ips]

http://drafthistory.com/index.php/positions/rb

From the above link, you can see a clear devaluing of the position in the NFL. Total number of draft picks for the position really dropped for a while but have largely flattened out. Perhaps a bit of a uptick in recent years but not much.

However, despite the total number taken in the draft being about the same over the past 20 years or so, the number taken early in the top 3 and first round has continued to decline. However, the decline hasn't been as sharp.

Yeah, but running backs haven't changed.  Why were they so valued for 80 years and suddenly went to the back of the line?  An Ezekial Elliot can still impact a team faster than just about any other position player.  What is driving the trend? 

[LRRandy]

This might help

[bennyl08]

Yeah, but running backs haven't changed.  Why were they so valued for 80 years and suddenly went to the back of the line?  An Ezekial Elliot can still impact a team faster than just about any other position player.  What is driving the trend?

They have changed a bit. They are bigger and shorter than they used to be, but just as fast.




The biggest change I'd argue is the change to the players who tackle RB's.




It's just a correlation so far, but the big drop in RB's drafted happened from 80 to the late 90's early 00's. This is exactly the same time where DL and LB to a slightly lesser degree had a big jump in size, much more so than the RB's.

Rule changes also started to make the passing game more favorable, but those happened in the mid 90-'s to early 2000's, at the end of the decrease in total RB's taken. So, the devaluing of the RB I'd strongly argue is directly tied to the increasing size of linemen and defenders in the front 7. Easier for the RB's to get injured, shorter shelf life.

However, that would almost make one think that more RB's would be drafted, no? With more injuries, shorter careers, you'd need more of them. However, draft picks are valuable. I don't have the time to put in the effort, but it'd be really interesting to see where the loss in RB draft picks started to go to.

[LZH]

Ask LZH or Eli Whitney.

Eli's parts may have been interchangeable, but not mine.......I'm you-neek.

[str8volfan]

Ask LZH or Eli Whitney.

no

[Oklahawg]

True, we'll never see another great "senior" running back. We almost did with Jonathan Williams.

Until Rawleigh hung them up, I really thought we were ooching our way to having Bama-like depth. A bunch of (mostly big) running backs who have some speed and moves. Then, throw in a really fast guy occasionally. What RWIII had was All-SEC-caliber versatility...then everyone else could fall in line behind him per the situation. That was going to be a great formula for 2017.

As much as I like the rest of the guys, do we really know what we have? So to Okie's last point—the o-line—I would not question our RBs for a second if I knew our line was totally solid. Our o-line play last year was deflating at times. This season, if they can open holes and keep Austin from getting hit, we'll have one of the top couple O's in the conference.

Good answer (along with BPhi11ips) but I was referring to the role RBs play in pass protection. That is something a veteran player gets and owns. AC, for example, was a horrendous blocker upon arriving at UA but was willing to chip the stuff out of you by his last year.

[LZH]

no

What? You don't trust me?

[Hoggish1]

too lazy

Then you don't need to know that or anything else—you have arrived! LMAO...

[k.c.hawg]

This pretty much sums it up:


In 1982, the total number of passing attempts surpassed the total number of rushing attempts for the first time in NFL history. The following year, there were more rushing attempts than passing attempts, but since then passing has reigned supreme. There really is not any sign that the rushing game will make a resurgence as the preferred method of putting points on the board.

It's borderline impossible for the classic rushing game to disappear completely, but as displayed in my  Unofficial 2013 NFL Player Census, things really don't look good for the running back position.  Their average salary, at $1,682,565, is the fifth lowest in the league. Kickers get paid more, on average, than running backs. As far as durability, running backs are the absolute worst. If you average the length of every current NFL running back's career, you are left with 3.11 years, lower than any other position. What this also means is that most running backs are quite young. Younger players tend to be paid much less than veterans. NFL players who do not stay in the league past age 25  have seriously decreased chances at big money (by pro athlete standards). The NFL offers many better options than the running back position.

Passing effectiveness is up, passing frequency is up, and general rushing importance is down. By all indications we are in a truly airborne era of the NFL.

It has become a churn and burn position for 75% of the NFL. Most teams have a first down back then a 2nd and 3rd down back that can handle all facets of the passing game.

[bphi11ips]

This pretty much sums it up:


In 1982, the total number of passing attempts surpassed the total number of rushing attempts for the first time in NFL history. The following year, there were more rushing attempts than passing attempts, but since then passing has reigned supreme. There really is not any sign that the rushing game will make a resurgence as the preferred method of putting points on the board.

It's borderline impossible for the classic rushing game to disappear completely, but as displayed in my  Unofficial 2013 NFL Player Census, things really don't look good for the running back position.  Their average salary, at $1,682,565, is the fifth lowest in the league. Kickers get paid more, on average, than running backs. As far as durability, running backs are the absolute worst. If you average the length of every current NFL running back's career, you are left with 3.11 years, lower than any other position. What this also means is that most running backs are quite young. Younger players tend to be paid much less than veterans. NFL players who do not stay in the league past age 25  have seriously decreased chances at big money (by pro athlete standards). The NFL offers many better options than the running back position.

Passing effectiveness is up, passing frequency is up, and general rushing importance is down. By all indications we are in a truly airborne era of the NFL.

It has become a churn and burn position for 75% of the NFL. Most teams have a first down back then a 2nd and 3rd down back that can handle all facets of the passing game.

Interesting article and not surprising. 

So -are running backs in the NFL fungible for the most part, with occassional exceptions like Adrian Peterson and Ezekial Elloitt?  And if they are, does the same thing apply to the college game?

[HognotinMemphis]

 I read many years ago (20 or so) that the average NFL career of a RB is 4 seasons. That is likely the shortest average NFL career of any position.

[Oklahawg]

I read many years ago (20 or so) that the average NFL career of a RB is 4 seasons. That is likely the shortest average NFL career of any position.

I believe I have seen this somewhere.

[PonderinHog]

I believe I have seen this somewhere.

Probably here...

http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?action=post;quote=10822030;topic=633731.0;last_msg=10822054

[bennyl08]

Interesting article and not surprising. 

So -are running backs in the NFL fungible for the most part, with occassional exceptions like Adrian Peterson and Ezekial Elloitt?  And if they are, does the same thing apply to the college game?

Yes and no. The good ones absolutely are.

Lets start in college first. At any given time in college, there are about 60-80 rb's who will be drafted by the NFL, and that's not mentioning the rb's like Dennis Johnson and Michael Smith out there who can have success at the college level but not at the NFL. So I mean, it isn't particularly rare. 2008 was the last year we've had where there were no RB's that would go on to the NFL. 2012, we actually had 4 with Small, Knile, JWill, and Wingo/Johnson both being undrafted but with some real time as part of the 53 man roster and hanging around the NFL for more than a year/DJ actually started a game.

However, I think that 2012 group really illustrates things at the college level. The number of players in the NFL with Knile's physical abilities are rare. A player like Knile Davis isn't fungible. We saw that with our own team as well. When he was healthy, he gave us a great running game and the best success we've had as a team in a long time. Without him, for example in 2011, players like Wingo and Johnson were good enough to get the job done. But our run game wasn't as fierce. As rare as somebody like Knile is, it's hard to value him too highly when injuries kept him from contributing a whole lot.

So, it's relatively easy to have RB's good enough to get you 1k yards in a season. It isn't terribly hard to have NFL level rb's on your roster either. However, in all of college football, there are only a couple of rb's that are elite and locks to be top 10 draft picks. You have guys like Gurley, Fournette, Elliot, Peterson, McFadden, Bush, Richardson, Chubb if he didn't have the injury issues. There's been mixed success at the NFL level for that group, but all of them have had some success. Those players are not at all interchangeable on the college level. Behind them, the differences get smaller. The difference b/w a 2nd round and sometimes late first RB and a 5th round RB is pretty small. Which roughly translates to the difference between the say the 3rd best running in the country and the 15th best isn't very large. At the college level, these players are pretty much interchangeable with the separation by NFL standards being .05s faster in the forty, 4" more vertical jump, etc... Which at the NFL, can make a bigger difference when everybody is that talented. At the college level, the production difference isn't as noticeable. Case in point Cobi Hamilton. Was plenty explosive at the college level, barely even draftable at the NFL level and has taken about 5 years to even make a regular season 53 man roster and record his first catch. Behind those players, you have a large pool of Dennis Johnsons and Ronnie Wingo's. Players with a lot of heart and are pretty good, but lacking size, measurables, etc... and players with very good measurables but who struggle to translate it to the field.

At the NFL, it's similar, but with a much smaller pool. It is very easy to find a RB who can get you a good enough running game. Heck, right now, there are several RB's who've had some success that are still relatively young that can be signed. Probably even more once teams have to cut their rosters nearly in half. Beyond that, there's good players like a Latavious Murray, Jeremy Hill, Mark Ingram, etc... Those guys can't be replaced on the fly, but are not worth long term risks. You can readily pick somebody up in FA the next year or draft somebody who can get you that quality of play. Above that, there's the very good RB's. This is your LeSean McCoy, Marshawn Lynch, Arian Foster, Matt Forte. These players are not easily replaced. However, if they are not the only thing on offense, then the team can lose them without taking too big a hit offensively. Seattle dropped from 378 ypg and 26.4 ppg, to 357 ypg and 22.1 ppg. About 1 fg and 2 first downs less. In between there are some roller coaster backs like a todd gurley, doug martin or a demarco murray. These guys are either liabilities to the team or on a top 10 level. Which makes it hard to value them. Lastly, there are the elite on the NFL level such as a Peterson, likely Elliot, Faulk back in the day. This is somebody who will give you more than 4-5 years of top level play, and somebody that you can't afford to lose. Absolutely not replaceable.

In conclusion, at both college and the NFL, there are only a handful of players that can't be replaced by anybody. At the NFL level, there is stronger rarifaction such that the differences b/w backs can be small but have a big impact. At a college level, you could replace Alex Collins with one of 15-20 other RB's in the country that year and not see any drop off for our team that year. Those same backs at the NFL level that are virtually replaceable at the collegiate can be the difference b/w a player that goes to 5 pro bowls or starts 1 game in their career and never hits 500 career rushing yards. However, the NFL has to worry about salary caps. So that changes the equation there compared to college.

[El Puerco Grande]

First let me say that I never played organized football, so this is purely opinion. It seems to me that RB is the position on the team that is more instinctive than other positions. If you have 4.3 speed and can cut, you should be able to play RB. Other than fumble, about the only way you can mess up is by going Left when it should have been Right, and even then you have a 50/50 chance at getting it right. If there is any position on the team that is "fungible", it is RB.