Why Running Backs Are Getting The Shaft?

By: Brendan

Over the past few days, we have seen some of the best RBs in football come out and ask for higher-paid contracts. Now there are good arguments on both sides of the ball, but one of the main arguments is the career length of a running back. On average the length is 3 years for a running back, with how much they get hit it does take a toll on their bodies, wide receivers also seem to have a small career because of taking hits but they seem to get paid. With having a shorter career with 3-5 years the teams will get what they want out of you and not pay you no matter how good you play. 3 of the league's top running backs were not able to agree, Josh Jacobs led the league in rushing yards last season, Saquon Barkley was one of the main reasons for the Giants' success, and Tony Pollard became the RB1 in Dallas and has played well. These 3 should be some of the highest-paid players in the league, but it goes back to the length of a career. Why should the owners pay millions of dollars to someone that will give you 5 solid years of production and start to decline after that? The franchise tag for these 3 players is $10.1M, which is still solid pay but that is for one year when they should’ve gotten a contract for 3-4 years with a team. The RB position has been downgraded over the years and that could be with the rules in the NFL changing over time and the league becoming more of a passing league. I believe that Running Backs should be paid for big contracts for about 3-4 years, but the owners are not willing to dish out money when they can pay their QBs, WRs, and every other position including kickers instead of one of the most important positions in football.