RBs really were never devalued like some argue. It's about perspective.

[TD alt]

Like I've stated several times and argued here, the RB position has always been important:

 

Teams are averaging 27.1 rush attempts per game through Week 12, the most since 2009. And they're running for 119.6 yards per game, the second most over the past 25 seasons.

Backed by quality offensive lines and commitment from their teams to pound the rock, Barkley and Henry are leading the way for two of the most physical -- and successful -- teams in the league.

"Teams are finding the value in running the ball to winning," Eagles defensive coordinator Vic Fangio said. "The run game never disappeared, really. ... More teams majoring in it now."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/42669481/baltimore-ravens-philadelphia-eagles-saquon-barkley-derrick-henry-week-13

 

Intelligent football fans, including Huddlers, need to stop misconstruing what it means to devalue RBs in reference to the NFL. What I have said is that you want dynamic talent at the position. And, in my opinion, the absolute best way to get it is to draft it, even if you have to with a high draft pick. That being said, depending upon where your team is on the curve toward success, or depending upon the status of your championship window, and especially if you can sign a top talent on a relative deal, you acquire the talent. RBs are not plug and play, there is a distinguishable difference between dynamic backs and average guys. Sure, you can get by a lot of times, but legit contenders generally have legit guys toting the rock. 

Now where RBs are being devalued rightly or wrongly (which is really a question and possible point of contention for the NFLPA), is when it's time for FOs to re-up them or let them walk. I have no problem with not being willing to pay top dollar for a position that is bruising and punishing as RB. It is here that execs must balance the opportunity costs either positively or negatively. Sometimes that might amount to an extension, sometimes not (as I previously alluded to depending upon the team's situation). It's also why it is arguably important to strike in the draft when the opportunity arises. It's also a reason why you need to keep a stable and always try to keep some talent in the pipeline. But to say that you can easily get by with JAG in the backfield, just doesn't cut the mustard and isn't really a reflection of history in my mind. Using the run to set up the pass and the pass to set up the run is the most efficient way to run an offense, and that truth will never be devalued when it comes to playing on Sundays.

 

[SmokinwithWilly]

The position is valuable but situation allows for better or worse performance from the position. Creative offenses with strong offensive lines seem to have a much easier time plugging and playing RBs. Look at KC, Philly, Detroit. Creative offenses with strong offensive lines. Miles Sanders is a prime example. Behind Philly he had a season to remember. Behind ours, a season to forget. 

[LinvilleGorge]

It really is though if you look at contracts and draft pick investment. Teams just realized that it's a position where if you don't have an elite of the elite talent that you can get serviceable production out of a fairly cheap player or mid-round pick.

[Basbear]

It's very simple. It's the answer to everything - money. Teams simply are not paying RBs what QBs, WRs, OL, CB, DL, and LBs make. Just the facts. 

 

The bonus is the rise in mid-round success. Along with many teams are splitting the cost between 2 players rather than one lead dawg. 

 

Lastly, there are plenty of stats for nerds; When an RB reaches # carries, they go downhill nearly 99%. I forgot the number, but my guess is 1500.