$8 million+ RB's since 2010

[kungfoodude]

Some interesting data I complied from salary cap and production.

[Harbingers]

Is that by flat 8M or % of cap over X?

Edited February 21, 2021 by Harbingers

[kungfoodude]

Just now, Harbingers said:

Is that by flat 8M or % of cap over 8M?

Flat $8 mil. There have only been 40 instances of a RB getting $8+ mil in a season during that period. 

[Harbingers]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

Flat $8 mil. There have only been 40 instances of a RB getting $8+ mil in a season during that period. 

Gotcha, Wasn't sure if teams were even paying running backs 8+ 10 years ago.

[Mr. Scot]

Reminds me of the stuff I've seen about hundred million dollar quarterbacks.

I think Roethlisberger and Manning are the only ones to actually win a Super Bowl after getting a hundred million contract.

Granted, Tom Brady kind of skews things.

[top dawg]

I mean, I'm sure there is some correlation, but that probably can be said of any position. 

I just don't intellectually believe that just because you pay a productive RB that it guarantees you to not compete for championships on a consistent basis. I don't believe that you can look at this with tunnel vision. In a macro sense, you should be looking at your puzzle pieces each year and determining what it's going to take to compete.

[kungfoodude]

Just now, Harbingers said:

Gotcha, Wasn't sure if teams were even paying running backs 8+ 10 years ago.

Actually, it was more common back then it was now. Only 12 of those 40 instances are from 2016-2020.

It's almost as if the league has decided that you shouldn't spend a lot of money on RB's.....

In fairness, there are 7 RB's that will make $8+ mil in 2021 and 6 the two years after. This is of course assuming some of those guys don't get cut during that period, which is likely. 

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, top dawg said:

I mean, I'm sure there is some correlation, but that probably can be said of any position. 

I just don't intellectually believe that just because you pay a productive RB that it guarantees you to not compete for championships on a consistent basis. I don't believe that you can look at this with tunnel vision. In a macro sense, you should be looking at your puzzle pieces each year and determining what it's going to take to compete.

This is just one bit of data but the whole of the picture has been pretty clear. Successful teams don't spend mega-bucks on RB's or at least they don't for very long. 

We have 2-4 more years of interesting data incoming because we have a lot of guys in the past two years that got mega bucks deals and Barkley will probably be another one coming up. 

[Basbear]

fuging Hernaiy special...

[kungfoodude]

I just realized the "OR" statements are skewed. I will correct that and repost. 

[kungfoodude]

[mav1234]

Interesting. Pretty clear that paying a lot for a RB doesn't torpedo a team's ability to compete. 

We also need to remember cmc is a different kind of RB than most, even among highly paid RBs of the past and present.

[kungfoodude]

1 hour ago, mav1234 said:

Interesting. Pretty clear that paying a lot for a RB doesn't torpedo a team's ability to compete. 

We also need to remember cmc is a different kind of RB than most, even among highly paid RBs of the past and present.

It doesn't have a strong record of success in that time period, mainly the opposite. Only 30% of the instances had a top 10 yardage or rushing TD performance and resulted in a winning record. 

CMC is not drastically different than Ladainian Tomlinson or Marshall Faulk. One who had great career postseason success, one who had almost none. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by kungfoodude

[Catsfan69]

Man OP you really seem to have a grudge against Cmac.

And I hate to inform you that right now he is better than LT or Faulk.

Now if he retires early I will be glad to adjust that statement. 

But right now I wouldn't trade for either of those guys straight up for Cmac.