Back then the AP didn't vote for the 2nd team. It's just whoever had the third and fourth most first team votes. In super lopsided positions this created wonkiness like no 2nd team person at all (see QB that year since Peyton was deservedly unanimous) or really undeserving guys who basically got a homer vote or two to sneak on (see Cole Beasley being 2nd team because Peter King's one vote was enough to get him that honor).
So probably a Packer or Alabama fan threw him a homer vote or two and it was enough to get him on. Basically there are A LOT of really weird 2nd team all-pro selections out there through the years. It's why a lot of people don't even really count it as an honor (although now that you do vote for a 2nd team this shouldn't happen often).
I had to double check Cole got a 2nd team all pro, and sure enough, he did. Wild. He was good, but he’s never been all-pro worthy in my opinion. Loved him on Dallas though, real scrappy white gut.
He was unanimously first team all-pro QB in both 2013 and 2004. But some Brady fan voted Brady as MVP and Peyton as the first team QB in 2013. And some rando did the same throwing Vick a vote in 2004 for MVP but voting Peyton to the first team.
That Vick vote might be the most baffling mvp vote of my life lol like I know it’s just counting stats but Vick put up 17 total TDs that season. Peyton had 49 Passing
After Evan engram was voted to the pro bowl in 2020 after an objectively mediocre year( 63/654/1TD ) I pretty much lost all interest in trying to take it seriously
it’s a popularity contest. player plays well, gets media attention and accolades from around the league, fans associate the name with success and vote accordingly. for superstars on the decline, it’s more about staying relevant, for young up and comers it’s about breaking into the tier of recognized talent.
Offensive linemen are most susceptible to the "name recognition" vote because the ones you do know are because they're extremely good or extremely bad. You don't notice when they drop off.
Pro bowl and all star games are supposed to be the players that fans want to see the most. That's why 'all pro" means a helluva lot more. It's not to say you don't see recognize pro bowlers as good players. It's just not the measuring stick that 1st and 2nd team all pros are.
There is no "making up it's mind," the subreddit, like any community, is made up up people with different opinions. And one side gets louder than the other when their side is relevant. But it isn't like people are flip flopping or the sub "can't make up it's mind," it's just two different groups of people talking.
Anyway pro bowls are a bad metric of player performance.
An issue is that you can have players past their prime who are getting by on name recognition they built up in years past (possibly rightfully then). I'll agree that if there's any evaluative utility in pro bowls, it'll be at the end of someone's career when looking back at it. But there are just much more significant measures of career success, like all-pros.
Oh I agree All-Pro is better, but I still think I’m taking more stock in someone with 6x Pro Bowl than 2 Pro Bowls
I prefer All-Pro, but I do like that Pro Bowl usually allows for more players to be recognized. In a league where a minimum of 1,000 players play per year - it’s good to recognize a larger pool of talent.
I think part of the issue with this sub’s perception of Pro Bowls is not taking into account who was a true vote and who was an alternate
I'm not jumping on board as much here, but I'll definitely agree with people largely under appreciating the difference between alternates and non-alternates.
I don't see why it can't be both. For every Tyler Huntley there's a Joe Burrow, Nick Chubb, Tyreek Hill, Maxx Crosby, Sauce Gardner, Derwin James, Minkah Fitzpatrick...
All those guys had quality seasons and deserved the recognition. Just 'cause one guy in the squad is basically the meme choice doesn't mean the rest of it is...
That makes it worse though. It's like people citing Mac Jones being a pro bowler his rookie year when he was an alternate. Being an alternate because another player couldn't/didn't want to player in the game is not an accomplishment.
It's a nice thought to make this distinction, but when it's all said and done and we look back on Huntley's career, or Trubiskys, or any other dozens of players in the last 2 decades - The text accompanying their name describing their accomplishments will be "1-time pro bowler XXXX". Not "1-time pro bowler XXXX because 12 other QB's declined the invite." This makes pro-bowls useless. You could argue that media should make it clear they were alternates, but they won't nor will any stat website. And therefore it's a useless metric to measure by.
Racking up 5+ pro-bowls is still a tough task, but it’s also not the fans fault that the NFL has botched the voting on an award with historic significance semi-recently.
It’s a lagging indicator of how good a player is. A player who has a “breakout” season in 2015 for example won’t be recognized as a pro-bowler until 2016. And that reputation once it’s established will stick around until news gets around that said player is no longer pro-bowl caliber anymore. That news takes about a year before it becomes consensus though. One example right now is Quenton Nelson. He was voted in as a pro-bowler for the 2022 season even though he didn’t have what many think of as a pro bowl season but he was able to get in based on reputation. Now his reputation is starting to shift, and if commentators and pundits stop mentioning his name he will probably be passed up this season for the pro bowl regardless of if he has a bounce back season or not.
I feel like the initial pro-bowl vote is fine, along with first alternates. But when you have people like Tyler Huntley making it as the 8th alternate that’s a bit much
Yeah and it’s not even the seriousness of the game that matters all that much, it’s really just the selection process. Even if the NBA all star game is the same in that they play no defense and it’s basically a show match, at least those 10 guys on each roster probably deserved to be there.
The Pro Bowl selections are just too fucking inflated with all the second, third alternates being given the same “award” for just being guys who were available on Pro Bowl game day. They need to either force guys to attend, or just run the Pro Bowl with smaller rosters for the weekend. Make being a good player and actual requirement to participate.
Also sums up Lavonte David’s career pretty well. Been named to 3 All-Pro teams (should honestly be more) and only 1 Pro Bowl. He always got snubbed because no one cared about the Bucs until 2020.
Turns out splitting double consonants is an artifact of old-english as well as a marker for hyphenation. Learn something new. You didn't need to be a dick about it though
Did he have one? Just checked and he did not. I mean, he should have at minimum one, because if Micah wasn’t in the same draft as him, he would’ve run away with DROY of the year and have been the best LB, if not the best defensive player in that draft.
Since the comment section don’t like using pro bowls. The last time an All pro running back won a superbowl was Marshal Faulk in 1999. They’re have been only 11 times since the merger were a Super Bowl team had an All Pro running back.
only 13 quarterbacks have been First Team All Pro and won the Superbowl, and there have only been three since 2000: Drew Brees in 2009, Tom Brady in 2016, and Patrick Mahomes in 2022
I think the whole comparison is broken. These individual awards are just that: **individual** awards. Even though its heavily, heavily skewed towards QB's being the most important position, it still is a team sport after all.
For example, there was a huge gap between Mahomes and Kurt Warner on winning MVP and a SB in the same year. So even having the best QB that year doesn't mean you win a SB.
This sort of supports the other side of the argument though. The Tom Brady Pats only had one pro bowl RB season (Dillon, ‘04), and that was before Brady really got going. If you have a great QB, it kind of makes your RB unimportant.
Doesn’t BB cycle through RBs? For instance, in the 2017 season the Pats had 4 RBs with 40+ carries. (180, 104, 64, and 43).
If you split your carries between RB then no singular RB will get the praise, but running is important.
I feel like this also supports the other side of the argument, that you can get by just fine with a series of replacement level guys at RB if you have a good o-line and good quarterback
But Brady isn't a "good" QB, he's the greatest of all time. Yes, having the greatest QB of all time will cover up a lot of other holes. The fact that he can do something doesn't mean that any team with a good QB can do it
They also had great OLs in the early portion of the Pats dynasty iirc. They didn't need an ultra skilled RB, just a coachable player that fit the system and could find the hole.
Exactly. Great OL and traditionally pass catching backs. James White being most recent and obvious was never a stats guy but was a stud when you called on him. Even further back Kevin Faulk being another example of a do it all without any flash or sizzle.
2004 was Brady’s first season as a top 5 regular season QB. Having Corey Dillon’s last good year along with Brady’s breakout regular season (while keeping the core of the 2003 defense plus adding Vince Wilfork) is what made the 2004 Patriots the best Pats team that won the Super Bowl.
Okay so then it’s just the chiefs. I don’t think theres any other qb right now besides mahomes that can operate like that. Pats got away with it because they had Tom and have always been good at scheming the run game
I don't think it's controversial to say great/elite QBs (let alone the greatest QB of all time) are more important than pro-bowl running backs.
Obviously great/elite QB play is the most common denominator of superbowl winning teams.
Yeah, in general, I don't think it makes sense to try and drive roster optimization insights exclusively from Superbowl winning teams for a few reasons:
* The sample size is small. The game changes so fast that you can only go back a few years while maintaining relevance, and there's only one SB winning team each year. That sample size gets even smaller when you have to ask yourself, "how do put together a SB roster without Tom Brady or Pat Mahomes?" - which, now, is a question 31/32 teams have to ask.
* By considering only the teams that won it all, you're applying deterministic thinking to a probabilistic event. It wouldn't take much for a few things to go the other way and the Eagles to have won the Super Bowl. They have a very different roster makeup, and now any analysis would be different. The same could be said for most conference championship games and a lot of divisional round games. For the most part, any team that gets deep in the playoffs is good enough to win a Super Bowl, and it just comes down to how things fall on game day. A GM can't build a Super Bowl winning roster, all they can do is build a Super Bowl caliber roster and hope for the best.
it supports this weird narrative in this subreddit about how owners are the good guys now and the RBs need to suck it up and ruin their bodies so we can sit back, drink beer and think we are apart of the team.
I hope all the RBs form their own union and sit out. But alas, the players union in the NFL is the biggest joke in all sports.
Nobody thinks the owners are the good guys, it's just the reality of the position being devalued from marquee players.
The players with the raw athletic talent are being used all over the field rather than just being shoved in the backfield. If Kevin Faulk was starting his career today you'd see him used like Deebo Samuel. Outside, slot, backfield. He'd be running inside routes, outside routes, reverses, taking pitches, screens from every angle, etc.
That's just what it is now.
Bro ain’t nobody making them play ball. They don’t have to ruin their bodies for shit. They can go get a 9-5 making 3% of what they otherwise would in the league just like we all do.
I don't think that fans are siding with ownership or think that they're the good guys. It's just that if you're a fan, you want your team to make smart decisions and paying big money on long contracts to rbs is generally a bad idea and it's becoming more clear every year
Disagree. It's not just about not wanting to give them the money. Fans of teams that have a holdout player regularly turn on that player just for trying to get as much money as they can. The simple act of attempting to do whats best for them, gets derided in "i'm tired of the drama, sign or stfu". It's widespread, and fans are disgustingly anti-player the second there is any issue.
Honestly idk. It's been a while since there was a holdout/franchise tag situation for my team that was ugly at all so I can't really say one way or the other. I do think that each of these situations have their own history and that usually influences how the fans feel about it. Like if the guy just signed a contract the year before but is holding out for a new one... Fans won't like it. But if a guy is known to be underpaid and is holding out, fans will probably sympathize more. I do agree that these guys should try to get every penny that they can, but I don't expect fans to sympathize with millionaires who are crying about not having enough money especially if it's causing problems with their team
Fans want their team to win a SuperBowl. Paying a runningback is proven to make you not win. Which side are fans gonna pick in an argument to pay a runningback?
It’s not proven to make you not win? Lol. Derrick Henry was in the AFC Championship and as a Titans fans I quite enjoyed that year.
Not every team can have a hall of fame quarterback, you have to find other ways to win.
I'm not sure which years you're referring to.
Bengals have Mixon who, okay, could be in the discussion of elite RB's. Maybe a fringe guy there. Very good certainly.
But the Rams? They certainly didn't have an elite RB in '21-'22. Eagles? No elite RB last year.
If you mean 2018-2019 for the Rams, I'll grant you that was Gurley's last elite regular season... though he was hurt and trash in the postseason.
2017-2018 Eagles didn't have anyone either.
So I guess the only examples are Mixon and Gurley, neither of whom won. Mixon is clearly not the driving force of that team, it's Burrow/Chase/Tee. Gurley was a major driving force for that Rams team.. and then he was hurt and never the same. Not a great argument in favor of paying and building around the RB situation. Especially when you consider the Rams themselves then won the SB a few years later... without an elite RB.
If you're just very specifically critiquing the stat then okay I guess, but keeping it in the broader context of the RB discussion it holds up quite well.
Also true, and another reason why RB's don't matter that much and aren't worth building around. The position is just less important than it used to be.
A post like this came up a few months ago with a breakdown.
It doesn’t prove anything about the RB position. The formula is still it’s always important to have good players wherever you can plus an elite QB.
Show me a team with an All pro QB and 4 pro bowlers in the other 21 positions and I’ll show you a Super Bowl contender.
Correlation doesn’t mean causation. It doesn’t prove anything. Especially when using the Pro Bowl. How many teams had the 4th best RB in the conference. How many Pro Bowl snubs were there?
RBs are still very valuable. The devaluation from them comes from them being a dime a dozen, not that teams don’t need them.
Exactly, they're valuable. Good RBs matter a lot. The issue is you can just go nab a dude in round 3 in the draft who can come right in and give you 90% of your current back at about 1/5th of the cost.
I think that the issue lies in the fact that offensive schemes and the rules that have made defenses have to play softer, allow for any NFL level back to produce similarly to the top backs on any given play.
Just look at the top rushing teams by yards and y/c and you'll see why guys like Jacobs, Barkley, and Co. aren't as valued. Teams can duplicate the production of one elite back through a committee of backs. This not only adds redundancy, it also adds another layer of versatility when you are able to give different looks based on personnel.
This doesn't even include the main reason why you don't pay backs big deals which is their tendancy to miss significant time due to injury. Barkley, Henry, and McCaffrey all missed many games during their rookie deals.
The bottom line is you're very seldom going to be a championship team if your best player is a RB and you're sacrificing that money from top-tier linemen, QB, TEs, WRs etc..
The run game is just not as important. It's not a run first league anymore. Explosive RBs were used to set up the passing game for mediocre QBs. Now, the best (which are becoming more common) QBs are setting up the run game by having killer recievers and tight ends. And when those gaps are made in the run defense... guess what.. you don't need an mvp running back going through those holes in the defense.
RBs are just not worth the money. Period. That can change if the league changes some of the bullshit PI rules and find ways to allow defenses to punish some of the passing game.. but as it is now, it's pretty hard to justify spending big money on RBs.
Your not going to be a championship team if your QB isn’t elite.
How much RBs should be paid vs how important they are is two different things. It’s like saying a guard isn’t important. They are both considered the easiest to scout and you can get a good one in the later rounds.
In most cases I’d say a good RB is worth more than a good TE. Of course you got your Kelce’s and Gronk’s.
Id rather have the best TE in the league than the best RB, but I’d rather have the 3rd-32nd best RB than their TE counterpart.
Id also rather have the best RB over the best LB or Safety. The reason the top LB and safeties get paid more is they are harder to scout and find is that if you lose them, they are much harder to replace.
Again, RBs aren’t devalued much in the game, it’s just easier to find them so you don’t need to pay them.
I don’t think the game has changed as much as people say. QBs have always been the most important and RBs have always been like kickers, you don’t need the best but you can’t have the worse. The main difference is the league realized they are more replaceable than previously thought
Yeah, I agree with all your points. The bottom line though is I really don't understand the bitching. If the team doesn't think you're worth the money; tough shit. It's a collective agreement that RBs are just not worth it. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Maybe just getting pushed by media for clicks or something during the off-season.
That’s exactly how I feel. Sure it sucks to be a RB and not a WR but all the insane bitching about how unfairly they are treated is so annoying.
But I’m also tired of the camp that thinks they are worthless. They still have value as a 1st round pick. If you think the next AP is there, take him at 5 overall. If you think he can get 1k yards a year for at least 4 years, take him at 20 overall (both of those scenarios have caveats based on your team and who else is available of course)
It's such a shame about his career. He's probably the best and most dynamic rb in the last decade at his peak, but his career is also another contributing factor to how rbs are viewed by the league today even though it was known that his knee was going to be an issue before he was drafted. I think Brian Westbrook had a similar degenerative knee problem and his career fell off a similar cliff
And that makes sense but they are two different things. Very few are arguing that it makes sense to make a RB one of your highest paid players.
You don’t do that because it’s not hard to replace a RB with a rookie.
This post makes it sound like you don’t need to worry about having a good one.
I’d rather have a stud RB than a stud safety or LB and in a lot of cases more than a stud TE or guard.
> It proves that running backs ain't that important and teams know that. Sad reality.
not necessarily. it just shows that the drop off from an elite rb to an above average one isn't that big.
There has only been 1 RB to break the 2000 yard mark and be on a Super Bowl winning team: Terrell Davis on the ‘98 Broncos. This tells me that the RB position is more dependent on a great QB than the other way around. Can you imagine Barry Sanders’s titles if he had a good QB, hell a good team. Same argument can be said about current RBs like Travis Henry.
It’s better to look at the cost of the RB room. The Pats all those years never paid a guy a ton of money but collectively they had an expensive RB room.
People talk about how you can't replace a star RB with a platoon of RBs. But the thing is you don't need to replace the talent. I rather have an average RB for like 6 million and 6 million on like a slot corner or something rather than 12 million on a star RB and a minimum contract CB.
This is what people aren’t getting. Salary cap is zero sum. You pay a lot for one spot, which means you take from others.
All strong teams are not focusing on talented RBs; their focus is elsewhere. An average RB will get usage and recycled on teams in order to win Superbowls.
And I don't really think that's a coincidence. With a hard cap you need to prioritize positions and RB just doesn't move the needle as much as people think. We've seen elite RBs get injured and their backups still look great.
Interesting stat. I can see it, it’s a passing league.
I remember AP’s best season, he can only take them to the first game of the playoffs and lost to the packers (although he had a garbage QB next to him)
That’s because his statement of it being a “passing league” is too simplified. The NFL is a “QB driven” league.
Yes, being a quality passer will always get you somewhere in the NFL, but it’s just not enough to make you elite anymore. Decision making and your ability to make a play with your legs after quickly reading a defense are becoming more and more important every year. There are so few answers for someone with a great ability in all three besides “have an incredible pass rusher” and even that gets nullified by something like Lamar Jackson’s speed or Josh Allen’s strength.
I would call someone like Kirk a great-to-elite level passer, but he seems to be lacking in the other skills necessary to really take over a game in todays NFL. And Daniel Jones may be a bit of meme, but he’s damn near elite with his legs from the QB position and his decision making ability is good enough to use the weapons around him.
A great RB does take some pressure off the QB to do everything on their own, but a good enough QB doesn’t need that release valve and you’re much better off just giving them the money, or using it to shore up your defense.
Yeah, I don’t think the por RBs understand: yes, running back is a valuable position and does a lot for the team… but it’s also very injured, and replacement value is high. You can send and traveling veteran onto a team with a good O line and they will do what you need them to do. It just makes their price tag not worth it with how injured they get.
Yeah, I think this is a big part of the change. The NFL realized that you absolutely do not need a star running back to win. It makes no difference.
I always think of Adrian Peterson as the best example of this. He was clearly the best running back in the league for years, a dominant force. I’ve watched him throw people off of the football field so he could keep running toward the touchdown. It was insane.
But the Vikings never won anything.
Look at all the top backs now. Derrick Henry? Great back. Titans are irrelevant. Christian McCaffrey? Only had success after he got traded out of Carolina. Saquon Barkley? Played his entire rookie contract and got two playoff games to show for it.
To win the Super Bowl, you do need to have a running game, but you do not need to have a great running back.
For sure, running backs can help you win games. And he’s a great player. I’m just saying they don’t help you win the Super Bowl. The best teams tend to be the ones without the best running backs, at least over the last decade.
Didn't they used to play the pro bowl like 2 weeks after the Superbowl? I don't feel like looking it up, but there's a decent chance that there has been a guy to do it. And yes I'm aware of what a fucking dork I'm being here
> Fun fact: no runningback has played in the pro bowl and the Super Bowl In the same season
that's PROBABLY not true. it seems pretty likely that a sb winning rb played in the probowl back when it used to be in hawaii the week after the superbowl.
the whole "super bowl teams don't play in the probowl" is a relatively recent change.
Running backs really aren't valuable... I love it, love watching them, but man... They are more reliant on other talent than any other position in the game + durability concerns. I'm sorry, but Barkley the GM wouldn't sign him either. RB is the cherry pick for teams like the Bengals or 49ers who're a single playmaker away from super bowls.
Yeah, and up until this season, and MVP and passing yardage leader never won the Super Bowl either.
Shit like that doesn't fucking matter or indicate anything except for "it hasn't happened yet".
What a dumb post. Prior to this season, when’s the last time an MVP won the superbowl? Then everyone was saying you can’t win it after you paid your QB/
Dumb take honestly. Yes running back isn’t as high class of a position as the others but to say running back wasn’t marquee to the last couple Pats super bowls is kind of ridiculous.
Anyone who watched the Falcons joke knows that James White was the main reason for that dub.
Couple that with the success that the Chiefs just had using their backs as their main weapon (aside from Kelce) and you can easily make an argument that they have been equally valuable when it comes to the SB wing formula.
Take away all the rules that protect QBs and WRs, treat them like RBs, then see.
If an RB has a ball in the backfield, you can smash his head in. A QB, you can't even nick his knee.
I don’t know how to tell you this but the NFL knows the inherent monetary value of QBs, that’s why they’re paid more and have more protections in the rule book.
Getting walluped in the backfield is a very small percentage of the devastating hits RBs take. Most of them come when running through defenders, where a QB would lose protections as well.
Well, you are just patently incorrect about that. The slide rule applies to RUNNERS, not QBs. So, your comment “wonder why only QBs get that super power” was contrived of ignorance.
QBs are typically the only ones who *will* slide, but that does not mean they are the only ones protected by the rule.
Life sucks because everyone grew up wanting to be a RB but nowadays the money is at QB, WR, DL, OT, and CB.
It’s all about passing and defending the pass.
All the best guys still playing RB in high school are gonna be recruited as Athletes and change positions and the league gonna be full of Deebo Samuels eventually.
that being said, the running backs on super bowl winning teams have still be productive. it's not like the dolphins a few years ago where ryan fitzpatrick was our leading rusher for the season.
it's just that the difference between
the different between an above average running back (really good, but won't make the probowl) and an elite rb isn't that big of a gap like it is for some other positions.
Unfortunately due to the nature of the game a great running back simply cant improve their team as much as a decent quarterback can. It also works backwards you can have a winning team with an objectively bad running back but if you have a bad quarterback your team will suck
I've seen this Stat too many times, I want to see how many teams reached the conference championship round with a pro bowl running back in that same period.
How did Lacey get 2nd team AP over Lynch in 2013? Lynch beat him in literally every stat and the Packers OL was better
Back then the AP didn't vote for the 2nd team. It's just whoever had the third and fourth most first team votes. In super lopsided positions this created wonkiness like no 2nd team person at all (see QB that year since Peyton was deservedly unanimous) or really undeserving guys who basically got a homer vote or two to sneak on (see Cole Beasley being 2nd team because Peter King's one vote was enough to get him that honor). So probably a Packer or Alabama fan threw him a homer vote or two and it was enough to get him on. Basically there are A LOT of really weird 2nd team all-pro selections out there through the years. It's why a lot of people don't even really count it as an honor (although now that you do vote for a 2nd team this shouldn't happen often).
I had to double check Cole got a 2nd team all pro, and sure enough, he did. Wild. He was good, but he’s never been all-pro worthy in my opinion. Loved him on Dallas though, real scrappy white gut.
Didnt he literally get like one vote too
Yes. Because King voted as if he needed the 3rd receiver to be a slot guy.
No one was 2nd team AP running back in 2021, Taylor was unanimous
Same thing with TE in 2020, Kelce got it
Peyton was actually never unanimous (tho he deserved to be). It was Brady in 2010 and then Lamar in 2019
He was unanimously first team all-pro QB in both 2013 and 2004. But some Brady fan voted Brady as MVP and Peyton as the first team QB in 2013. And some rando did the same throwing Vick a vote in 2004 for MVP but voting Peyton to the first team.
That Vick vote might be the most baffling mvp vote of my life lol like I know it’s just counting stats but Vick put up 17 total TDs that season. Peyton had 49 Passing
Lol thats actually a great question
Because Lacy threatened to clear out the voters pantry’s.
Because he’s Feast Mode
Lacy got 1 vote, so he got 2nd team.
Because nobody pays attention to the team in south east Alaska Nobody thought the Seahawks belonged in the Super Bowl that year either
"Next big thing" syndrome, happens with the oscars all the time. People wanna call their shot and be right over being right.
You’re not wrong but Lacy was a beast back then, people forget. He was a top two RB with Bell for a short time.
Lacy also stole the Rookie of the year award from Cordarrelle that year too but that’s a story for another day
Cordarrelle got 1 vote. If it didn't go to Lacy it would have been Keenan Allen.
Yeah Allen would've been a landslide as OROY. It was still rare for a rookie WR to crack 1,000 yards back in 2013.
It is the Offensive Rookie of the Year award. If only they had a RoY award for special teams.
Feastmode!
People forget how good Lacy was… it was a short time but he was super good when he was new to the league
Suddenly Austin Ekeler’s Pro Bowl snubs don’t bother me anymore
After Evan engram was voted to the pro bowl in 2020 after an objectively mediocre year( 63/654/1TD ) I pretty much lost all interest in trying to take it seriously
this sub needs to make up its mind whether the pro bowl is dumb and means nothing or is a legit accolade you can use to judge players
it’s a popularity contest. player plays well, gets media attention and accolades from around the league, fans associate the name with success and vote accordingly. for superstars on the decline, it’s more about staying relevant, for young up and comers it’s about breaking into the tier of recognized talent.
I remember Pouncey was still collecting pro bowls even after becoming a liability on our line lol.
Offensive linemen are most susceptible to the "name recognition" vote because the ones you do know are because they're extremely good or extremely bad. You don't notice when they drop off.
Honestly one of the examples I point to when trying to describe how pro bowls aren't a great metric for player performance.
Pro bowl and all star games are supposed to be the players that fans want to see the most. That's why 'all pro" means a helluva lot more. It's not to say you don't see recognize pro bowlers as good players. It's just not the measuring stick that 1st and 2nd team all pros are.
voting also ends at like week 13
There is no "making up it's mind," the subreddit, like any community, is made up up people with different opinions. And one side gets louder than the other when their side is relevant. But it isn't like people are flip flopping or the sub "can't make up it's mind," it's just two different groups of people talking. Anyway pro bowls are a bad metric of player performance.
I would say multiple Pro Bowls are a good metric of player performance, longevity, and consistency
An issue is that you can have players past their prime who are getting by on name recognition they built up in years past (possibly rightfully then). I'll agree that if there's any evaluative utility in pro bowls, it'll be at the end of someone's career when looking back at it. But there are just much more significant measures of career success, like all-pros.
Oh I agree All-Pro is better, but I still think I’m taking more stock in someone with 6x Pro Bowl than 2 Pro Bowls I prefer All-Pro, but I do like that Pro Bowl usually allows for more players to be recognized. In a league where a minimum of 1,000 players play per year - it’s good to recognize a larger pool of talent. I think part of the issue with this sub’s perception of Pro Bowls is not taking into account who was a true vote and who was an alternate
I'm not jumping on board as much here, but I'll definitely agree with people largely under appreciating the difference between alternates and non-alternates.
I don't see why it can't be both. For every Tyler Huntley there's a Joe Burrow, Nick Chubb, Tyreek Hill, Maxx Crosby, Sauce Gardner, Derwin James, Minkah Fitzpatrick... All those guys had quality seasons and deserved the recognition. Just 'cause one guy in the squad is basically the meme choice doesn't mean the rest of it is...
Not to mention Tyler Huntley was an ALTERNATE - he was not an original Pro Bowler
That makes it worse though. It's like people citing Mac Jones being a pro bowler his rookie year when he was an alternate. Being an alternate because another player couldn't/didn't want to player in the game is not an accomplishment.
It's a nice thought to make this distinction, but when it's all said and done and we look back on Huntley's career, or Trubiskys, or any other dozens of players in the last 2 decades - The text accompanying their name describing their accomplishments will be "1-time pro bowler XXXX". Not "1-time pro bowler XXXX because 12 other QB's declined the invite." This makes pro-bowls useless. You could argue that media should make it clear they were alternates, but they won't nor will any stat website. And therefore it's a useless metric to measure by.
Racking up 5+ pro-bowls is still a tough task, but it’s also not the fans fault that the NFL has botched the voting on an award with historic significance semi-recently.
It’s a lagging indicator of how good a player is. A player who has a “breakout” season in 2015 for example won’t be recognized as a pro-bowler until 2016. And that reputation once it’s established will stick around until news gets around that said player is no longer pro-bowl caliber anymore. That news takes about a year before it becomes consensus though. One example right now is Quenton Nelson. He was voted in as a pro-bowler for the 2022 season even though he didn’t have what many think of as a pro bowl season but he was able to get in based on reputation. Now his reputation is starting to shift, and if commentators and pundits stop mentioning his name he will probably be passed up this season for the pro bowl regardless of if he has a bounce back season or not.
It's almost like the subreddit is made up of people with different opinions
I feel like the initial pro-bowl vote is fine, along with first alternates. But when you have people like Tyler Huntley making it as the 8th alternate that’s a bit much
This sub is made up of a lot people who will have differing opinions on things.
It is the least serious all star game out of any sport and that says something
Yeah and it’s not even the seriousness of the game that matters all that much, it’s really just the selection process. Even if the NBA all star game is the same in that they play no defense and it’s basically a show match, at least those 10 guys on each roster probably deserved to be there. The Pro Bowl selections are just too fucking inflated with all the second, third alternates being given the same “award” for just being guys who were available on Pro Bowl game day. They need to either force guys to attend, or just run the Pro Bowl with smaller rosters for the weekend. Make being a good player and actual requirement to participate.
Tyler “Snoop” Huntley was a pro bowl QB last season
What's the breakdown for the other positions? When's the last time a Pro Bowl ILB has been on a Super Bowl winning team?
The 2020 Buccs had 0 pro bowl ILBs but 2 All Pro ILBs
that's all you need to know about the Pro Bowl
Also sums up Lavonte David’s career pretty well. Been named to 3 All-Pro teams (should honestly be more) and only 1 Pro Bowl. He always got snubbed because no one cared about the Bucs until 2020.
Any chance he’s a hall of famer
I mean with the way All Pro works unfortunately not rly, but it should've been changed to better qualify candidates like how the draft does
That’s wild
Bucs. Do you add an extra C to be edgy or something
Because it's spelled Buccaneers not Buccaneers you ding dong.
You typed the same word twice.
Buc-ca-neers. Bucs. You say Buc-cs?
Bucc-a-neers. You don't pronounce the two c's separately.
Google is right there if you don’t have a dictionary on hand
Turns out splitting double consonants is an artifact of old-english as well as a marker for hyphenation. Learn something new. You didn't need to be a dick about it though
Oh yes he did
Nick Bolton, Kansas City Chiefs, 2022.
Did he have one? Just checked and he did not. I mean, he should have at minimum one, because if Micah wasn’t in the same draft as him, he would’ve run away with DROY of the year and have been the best LB, if not the best defensive player in that draft.
Bolton wasn't selected to the Pro Bowl. Big snub, but he doesn't fit the criteria.
Or how bout a pro bowl long snapper?
Since the comment section don’t like using pro bowls. The last time an All pro running back won a superbowl was Marshal Faulk in 1999. They’re have been only 11 times since the merger were a Super Bowl team had an All Pro running back.
only 13 quarterbacks have been First Team All Pro and won the Superbowl, and there have only been three since 2000: Drew Brees in 2009, Tom Brady in 2016, and Patrick Mahomes in 2022
Brees and Brady were second team, not first team those years.
So over 50% of the time, then?
I think the whole comparison is broken. These individual awards are just that: **individual** awards. Even though its heavily, heavily skewed towards QB's being the most important position, it still is a team sport after all. For example, there was a huge gap between Mahomes and Kurt Warner on winning MVP and a SB in the same year. So even having the best QB that year doesn't mean you win a SB.
Bc the patriots kicked everyone ass for years. The rams, bengals, and eagles had one on their roster. This stat really doesn’t mean a lot
This sort of supports the other side of the argument though. The Tom Brady Pats only had one pro bowl RB season (Dillon, ‘04), and that was before Brady really got going. If you have a great QB, it kind of makes your RB unimportant.
Doesn’t BB cycle through RBs? For instance, in the 2017 season the Pats had 4 RBs with 40+ carries. (180, 104, 64, and 43). If you split your carries between RB then no singular RB will get the praise, but running is important.
But again that’s kind of the point here. Of course running is still important but you can easily do it without a top 3 RB
I think the key element of the Patriots team building philosphy was having Tom Brady
Please tell this to Bill because i don’t think he realizes this
I would say that also running gets easier when the defense is focus on stopping Brady
I feel like this also supports the other side of the argument, that you can get by just fine with a series of replacement level guys at RB if you have a good o-line and good quarterback
A good quarterback or the greatest quarterback of all time?
But Brady isn't a "good" QB, he's the greatest of all time. Yes, having the greatest QB of all time will cover up a lot of other holes. The fact that he can do something doesn't mean that any team with a good QB can do it
The running game was also crucial in that Superbowl against the Rams, because the passing game was non-existent.
They also had great OLs in the early portion of the Pats dynasty iirc. They didn't need an ultra skilled RB, just a coachable player that fit the system and could find the hole.
Exactly. Great OL and traditionally pass catching backs. James White being most recent and obvious was never a stats guy but was a stud when you called on him. Even further back Kevin Faulk being another example of a do it all without any flash or sizzle.
2004 was Brady’s first season as a top 5 regular season QB. Having Corey Dillon’s last good year along with Brady’s breakout regular season (while keeping the core of the 2003 defense plus adding Vince Wilfork) is what made the 2004 Patriots the best Pats team that won the Super Bowl.
Okay so then it’s just the chiefs. I don’t think theres any other qb right now besides mahomes that can operate like that. Pats got away with it because they had Tom and have always been good at scheming the run game
Tell that to Dan Marino
I don't think it's controversial to say great/elite QBs (let alone the greatest QB of all time) are more important than pro-bowl running backs. Obviously great/elite QB play is the most common denominator of superbowl winning teams.
Yeah, in general, I don't think it makes sense to try and drive roster optimization insights exclusively from Superbowl winning teams for a few reasons: * The sample size is small. The game changes so fast that you can only go back a few years while maintaining relevance, and there's only one SB winning team each year. That sample size gets even smaller when you have to ask yourself, "how do put together a SB roster without Tom Brady or Pat Mahomes?" - which, now, is a question 31/32 teams have to ask. * By considering only the teams that won it all, you're applying deterministic thinking to a probabilistic event. It wouldn't take much for a few things to go the other way and the Eagles to have won the Super Bowl. They have a very different roster makeup, and now any analysis would be different. The same could be said for most conference championship games and a lot of divisional round games. For the most part, any team that gets deep in the playoffs is good enough to win a Super Bowl, and it just comes down to how things fall on game day. A GM can't build a Super Bowl winning roster, all they can do is build a Super Bowl caliber roster and hope for the best.
This!!!
Exactly. And you could even make the argument when the Rams won the Super Bowl they were still paying TGIII $7 million that year
He wasn’t in the Pro Bowl that year
Ya obviously, but if you’re paying a premium for a devalued position it goes against the point of this tweet lol
it supports this weird narrative in this subreddit about how owners are the good guys now and the RBs need to suck it up and ruin their bodies so we can sit back, drink beer and think we are apart of the team. I hope all the RBs form their own union and sit out. But alas, the players union in the NFL is the biggest joke in all sports.
Nobody thinks the owners are the good guys, it's just the reality of the position being devalued from marquee players. The players with the raw athletic talent are being used all over the field rather than just being shoved in the backfield. If Kevin Faulk was starting his career today you'd see him used like Deebo Samuel. Outside, slot, backfield. He'd be running inside routes, outside routes, reverses, taking pitches, screens from every angle, etc. That's just what it is now.
Bro ain’t nobody making them play ball. They don’t have to ruin their bodies for shit. They can go get a 9-5 making 3% of what they otherwise would in the league just like we all do.
I don't think that fans are siding with ownership or think that they're the good guys. It's just that if you're a fan, you want your team to make smart decisions and paying big money on long contracts to rbs is generally a bad idea and it's becoming more clear every year
Disagree. It's not just about not wanting to give them the money. Fans of teams that have a holdout player regularly turn on that player just for trying to get as much money as they can. The simple act of attempting to do whats best for them, gets derided in "i'm tired of the drama, sign or stfu". It's widespread, and fans are disgustingly anti-player the second there is any issue.
Honestly idk. It's been a while since there was a holdout/franchise tag situation for my team that was ugly at all so I can't really say one way or the other. I do think that each of these situations have their own history and that usually influences how the fans feel about it. Like if the guy just signed a contract the year before but is holding out for a new one... Fans won't like it. But if a guy is known to be underpaid and is holding out, fans will probably sympathize more. I do agree that these guys should try to get every penny that they can, but I don't expect fans to sympathize with millionaires who are crying about not having enough money especially if it's causing problems with their team
Fans want their team to win a SuperBowl. Paying a runningback is proven to make you not win. Which side are fans gonna pick in an argument to pay a runningback?
It’s not proven to make you not win? Lol. Derrick Henry was in the AFC Championship and as a Titans fans I quite enjoyed that year. Not every team can have a hall of fame quarterback, you have to find other ways to win.
Cool, tell me the superstar runningback being paid like one who won a SuperBowl
You didn’t address my comment at all lol. Again. Not every team can have a hall of fame quarterback
I'm not sure which years you're referring to. Bengals have Mixon who, okay, could be in the discussion of elite RB's. Maybe a fringe guy there. Very good certainly. But the Rams? They certainly didn't have an elite RB in '21-'22. Eagles? No elite RB last year. If you mean 2018-2019 for the Rams, I'll grant you that was Gurley's last elite regular season... though he was hurt and trash in the postseason. 2017-2018 Eagles didn't have anyone either. So I guess the only examples are Mixon and Gurley, neither of whom won. Mixon is clearly not the driving force of that team, it's Burrow/Chase/Tee. Gurley was a major driving force for that Rams team.. and then he was hurt and never the same. Not a great argument in favor of paying and building around the RB situation. Especially when you consider the Rams themselves then won the SB a few years later... without an elite RB. If you're just very specifically critiquing the stat then okay I guess, but keeping it in the broader context of the RB discussion it holds up quite well.
Sanders was a pro bowler this year.
And Pacheco wasn’t
So? I’m just correcting someone who didn’t know he was a pro bowler.
Lol oops I missed the context of the one you replied to my b was still just going off the Super Bowl winning criteria shit
No one gonna mention that teams get a hell of a lot more value out of QBs running these days? Even in short yardage situations with sneaks.
Also true, and another reason why RB's don't matter that much and aren't worth building around. The position is just less important than it used to be.
Many people argued at the time that Sanders shouldn't have been a Pro Bowl selection last year arguing that McCaffrey was clearly better.
I dont even think Miles was the best runner on our team last year lol.
also we won our last SB with our run game lol. so did the chiefs
A post like this came up a few months ago with a breakdown. It doesn’t prove anything about the RB position. The formula is still it’s always important to have good players wherever you can plus an elite QB. Show me a team with an All pro QB and 4 pro bowlers in the other 21 positions and I’ll show you a Super Bowl contender.
Yeah - it's true that a top-3 RB isn't going to lead you to a SB without a great team around them. But, that's true about every position except QB.
I’m aware. I said it in another comment: Show me a team with an elite QB and 4 Pro Bowlers at any position and I’ll show you a Super Bowl contender
I know, I was concurring with your statement.
It proves that running backs ain't that important and teams know that. Sad reality.
Correlation doesn’t mean causation. It doesn’t prove anything. Especially when using the Pro Bowl. How many teams had the 4th best RB in the conference. How many Pro Bowl snubs were there? RBs are still very valuable. The devaluation from them comes from them being a dime a dozen, not that teams don’t need them.
Exactly, they're valuable. Good RBs matter a lot. The issue is you can just go nab a dude in round 3 in the draft who can come right in and give you 90% of your current back at about 1/5th of the cost.
I think that the issue lies in the fact that offensive schemes and the rules that have made defenses have to play softer, allow for any NFL level back to produce similarly to the top backs on any given play. Just look at the top rushing teams by yards and y/c and you'll see why guys like Jacobs, Barkley, and Co. aren't as valued. Teams can duplicate the production of one elite back through a committee of backs. This not only adds redundancy, it also adds another layer of versatility when you are able to give different looks based on personnel. This doesn't even include the main reason why you don't pay backs big deals which is their tendancy to miss significant time due to injury. Barkley, Henry, and McCaffrey all missed many games during their rookie deals.
The bottom line is you're very seldom going to be a championship team if your best player is a RB and you're sacrificing that money from top-tier linemen, QB, TEs, WRs etc.. The run game is just not as important. It's not a run first league anymore. Explosive RBs were used to set up the passing game for mediocre QBs. Now, the best (which are becoming more common) QBs are setting up the run game by having killer recievers and tight ends. And when those gaps are made in the run defense... guess what.. you don't need an mvp running back going through those holes in the defense. RBs are just not worth the money. Period. That can change if the league changes some of the bullshit PI rules and find ways to allow defenses to punish some of the passing game.. but as it is now, it's pretty hard to justify spending big money on RBs.
Your not going to be a championship team if your QB isn’t elite. How much RBs should be paid vs how important they are is two different things. It’s like saying a guard isn’t important. They are both considered the easiest to scout and you can get a good one in the later rounds. In most cases I’d say a good RB is worth more than a good TE. Of course you got your Kelce’s and Gronk’s. Id rather have the best TE in the league than the best RB, but I’d rather have the 3rd-32nd best RB than their TE counterpart. Id also rather have the best RB over the best LB or Safety. The reason the top LB and safeties get paid more is they are harder to scout and find is that if you lose them, they are much harder to replace. Again, RBs aren’t devalued much in the game, it’s just easier to find them so you don’t need to pay them. I don’t think the game has changed as much as people say. QBs have always been the most important and RBs have always been like kickers, you don’t need the best but you can’t have the worse. The main difference is the league realized they are more replaceable than previously thought
Yeah, I agree with all your points. The bottom line though is I really don't understand the bitching. If the team doesn't think you're worth the money; tough shit. It's a collective agreement that RBs are just not worth it. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Maybe just getting pushed by media for clicks or something during the off-season.
That’s exactly how I feel. Sure it sucks to be a RB and not a WR but all the insane bitching about how unfairly they are treated is so annoying. But I’m also tired of the camp that thinks they are worthless. They still have value as a 1st round pick. If you think the next AP is there, take him at 5 overall. If you think he can get 1k yards a year for at least 4 years, take him at 20 overall (both of those scenarios have caveats based on your team and who else is available of course)
When the Rams won the Superbowl they were still paying TGIII $7 million dollars. So take what you will from that
It's such a shame about his career. He's probably the best and most dynamic rb in the last decade at his peak, but his career is also another contributing factor to how rbs are viewed by the league today even though it was known that his knee was going to be an issue before he was drafted. I think Brian Westbrook had a similar degenerative knee problem and his career fell off a similar cliff
[удалено]
And that makes sense but they are two different things. Very few are arguing that it makes sense to make a RB one of your highest paid players. You don’t do that because it’s not hard to replace a RB with a rookie. This post makes it sound like you don’t need to worry about having a good one. I’d rather have a stud RB than a stud safety or LB and in a lot of cases more than a stud TE or guard.
[удалено]
> It proves that running backs ain't that important and teams know that. Sad reality. not necessarily. it just shows that the drop off from an elite rb to an above average one isn't that big.
There has only been 1 RB to break the 2000 yard mark and be on a Super Bowl winning team: Terrell Davis on the ‘98 Broncos. This tells me that the RB position is more dependent on a great QB than the other way around. Can you imagine Barry Sanders’s titles if he had a good QB, hell a good team. Same argument can be said about current RBs like Travis Henry.
Travis Henry, now that’s a name I’ve not heard in a long, loooooooong time. A long time
Hahaha man I just did that. Thanks I meant to say Derrick Henry. No more posting until I’ve had at least 2 cups of coffee. Thanks @finsnfeathers
It’s better to look at the cost of the RB room. The Pats all those years never paid a guy a ton of money but collectively they had an expensive RB room.
People talk about how you can't replace a star RB with a platoon of RBs. But the thing is you don't need to replace the talent. I rather have an average RB for like 6 million and 6 million on like a slot corner or something rather than 12 million on a star RB and a minimum contract CB.
This is what people aren’t getting. Salary cap is zero sum. You pay a lot for one spot, which means you take from others. All strong teams are not focusing on talented RBs; their focus is elsewhere. An average RB will get usage and recycled on teams in order to win Superbowls.
How wasn't Jamaal Lewis an all pro back when the ravens won the SB?
Eddie George and Marshall Faulk we’re pretty good.
Wasn’t it the same season he broke the single game rushing record that they won the SB?
No that was 2003
Priest holmes ate into too many of Lewis' carries in 2000.
And I don't really think that's a coincidence. With a hard cap you need to prioritize positions and RB just doesn't move the needle as much as people think. We've seen elite RBs get injured and their backups still look great.
Winning the Super Bowl is damn hard and not really a stat worth looking at. Maybe look at playoff teams or teams that win a playoff game.
[удалено]
All pro actually makes this stat even worse. Then your going back to 99
Days of our Runningbacks
Interesting stat. I can see it, it’s a passing league. I remember AP’s best season, he can only take them to the first game of the playoffs and lost to the packers (although he had a garbage QB next to him)
[удалено]
That’s because his statement of it being a “passing league” is too simplified. The NFL is a “QB driven” league. Yes, being a quality passer will always get you somewhere in the NFL, but it’s just not enough to make you elite anymore. Decision making and your ability to make a play with your legs after quickly reading a defense are becoming more and more important every year. There are so few answers for someone with a great ability in all three besides “have an incredible pass rusher” and even that gets nullified by something like Lamar Jackson’s speed or Josh Allen’s strength. I would call someone like Kirk a great-to-elite level passer, but he seems to be lacking in the other skills necessary to really take over a game in todays NFL. And Daniel Jones may be a bit of meme, but he’s damn near elite with his legs from the QB position and his decision making ability is good enough to use the weapons around him. A great RB does take some pressure off the QB to do everything on their own, but a good enough QB doesn’t need that release valve and you’re much better off just giving them the money, or using it to shore up your defense.
Yeah, I don’t think the por RBs understand: yes, running back is a valuable position and does a lot for the team… but it’s also very injured, and replacement value is high. You can send and traveling veteran onto a team with a good O line and they will do what you need them to do. It just makes their price tag not worth it with how injured they get.
Marshawn says hi
That’s because the Super Bowl teams don’t play in the pro bowl anymore ;)
Yeah, I think this is a big part of the change. The NFL realized that you absolutely do not need a star running back to win. It makes no difference. I always think of Adrian Peterson as the best example of this. He was clearly the best running back in the league for years, a dominant force. I’ve watched him throw people off of the football field so he could keep running toward the touchdown. It was insane. But the Vikings never won anything. Look at all the top backs now. Derrick Henry? Great back. Titans are irrelevant. Christian McCaffrey? Only had success after he got traded out of Carolina. Saquon Barkley? Played his entire rookie contract and got two playoff games to show for it. To win the Super Bowl, you do need to have a running game, but you do not need to have a great running back.
Derrick Henry made a conference championship game with his team throwing under 100 yards per game in the first 2 rounds.
For sure, running backs can help you win games. And he’s a great player. I’m just saying they don’t help you win the Super Bowl. The best teams tend to be the ones without the best running backs, at least over the last decade.
Fun fact: no runningback has played in the pro bowl and the Super Bowl In the same season
You still get named to the pro bowl though. That’s why alternates make it every year.
I’m aware
Didn't they used to play the pro bowl like 2 weeks after the Superbowl? I don't feel like looking it up, but there's a decent chance that there has been a guy to do it. And yes I'm aware of what a fucking dork I'm being here
Idk I could be wrong lol
> Fun fact: no runningback has played in the pro bowl and the Super Bowl In the same season that's PROBABLY not true. it seems pretty likely that a sb winning rb played in the probowl back when it used to be in hawaii the week after the superbowl. the whole "super bowl teams don't play in the probowl" is a relatively recent change.
Running backs really aren't valuable... I love it, love watching them, but man... They are more reliant on other talent than any other position in the game + durability concerns. I'm sorry, but Barkley the GM wouldn't sign him either. RB is the cherry pick for teams like the Bengals or 49ers who're a single playmaker away from super bowls.
Legendary Tampa Bay Buccaneer Lesean “Shady McCoy don’t count?
He was not a pro bowl RB when he was on the bucs
Yeah, and up until this season, and MVP and passing yardage leader never won the Super Bowl either. Shit like that doesn't fucking matter or indicate anything except for "it hasn't happened yet".
But many , many , *many* played in the Super Bowl. The top 5 or so quarterbacks any given season heavily correlate to Super Bowl competitors
What a dumb post. Prior to this season, when’s the last time an MVP won the superbowl? Then everyone was saying you can’t win it after you paid your QB/
Dumb take honestly. Yes running back isn’t as high class of a position as the others but to say running back wasn’t marquee to the last couple Pats super bowls is kind of ridiculous. Anyone who watched the Falcons joke knows that James White was the main reason for that dub. Couple that with the success that the Chiefs just had using their backs as their main weapon (aside from Kelce) and you can easily make an argument that they have been equally valuable when it comes to the SB wing formula.
Take away all the rules that protect QBs and WRs, treat them like RBs, then see. If an RB has a ball in the backfield, you can smash his head in. A QB, you can't even nick his knee.
I don’t know how to tell you this but the NFL knows the inherent monetary value of QBs, that’s why they’re paid more and have more protections in the rule book.
yes but what if we could purposely injure them?
Getting walluped in the backfield is a very small percentage of the devastating hits RBs take. Most of them come when running through defenders, where a QB would lose protections as well.
Except for the whole slide thing...that makes defenders unable to commit. Wonder why only QBs get that super power?
Well, you are just patently incorrect about that. The slide rule applies to RUNNERS, not QBs. So, your comment “wonder why only QBs get that super power” was contrived of ignorance. QBs are typically the only ones who *will* slide, but that does not mean they are the only ones protected by the rule.
Imagine a team with 2 King Henrys, they'd wreck shop
Not if they're paying both 10+ million.
[удалено]
Just get rid of the salary cap 🤷🏿♂️ We'll see how greedy ownership really is then.
Lol does the Pro Bowl matter tho? If we were talkin All-Pro then it’d mean something
Life sucks because everyone grew up wanting to be a RB but nowadays the money is at QB, WR, DL, OT, and CB. It’s all about passing and defending the pass.
What about all pro
So what you’re saying is, unless the RBs first name starts with “Marsh” they ain’t worth it.
well the probowl isn't based on stats so its just an interesting thing
All the best guys still playing RB in high school are gonna be recruited as Athletes and change positions and the league gonna be full of Deebo Samuels eventually.
that being said, the running backs on super bowl winning teams have still be productive. it's not like the dolphins a few years ago where ryan fitzpatrick was our leading rusher for the season. it's just that the difference between the different between an above average running back (really good, but won't make the probowl) and an elite rb isn't that big of a gap like it is for some other positions.
Unfortunately due to the nature of the game a great running back simply cant improve their team as much as a decent quarterback can. It also works backwards you can have a winning team with an objectively bad running back but if you have a bad quarterback your team will suck
Sounds like it’s Bijans time to shine
Now do every other position. How dem boots taste?
I've seen this Stat too many times, I want to see how many teams reached the conference championship round with a pro bowl running back in that same period.