|
muhly22222 -> RE: NFL Salaries by Team and Position (1/30/2013 6:00:36 PM)
|
quote:
It showed me that the Broncos have a QB, Caleb Hanie, that I didn't know about.
You should probably be glad for that, if last year's appearances with the Bears are any indication.
It does seem to support an idea that I've had for a few years, that it doesn't make sense to have an elite running back. Only 2 of the 12 playoff teams (Houston, Minnesota) payed more to their running backs than their wide receivers, while 2 others (Denver, Seattle) were close (within $1m). The full breakdown of the playoff teams:
Atlanta: RB - $10.31m, WR - $15.07m
Baltimore: RB - $10.99m, WR - $12.25m
Cincinnati: RB - $6.72m, WR - $7.83m
Denver: RB - $7.3m, WR - $7.55m
Green Bay: RB - $4.47m, WR - $18.06m
Houston: RB - $10.59m, WR - $9.5m
Indianapolis: RB - $3.72m, WR - $6.43m
Minnesota: RB - $13.1m, WR - $9.93m
New England: RB - $3.87m, WR - $15.02m
San Francisco: RB - $7.54m, WR - $13.06m
Seattle: RB - $12.34m, WR - $12.59m
Washington: RB - $3.33m, WR - $16.62m
Note that not only did the vast majority of team pay WRs more, in many cases it was significantly more. And note that some of the teams that weren't paying the big bucks for running backs still had effective running games. San Francisco, for one, which had the 6th-highest running back salary (with an established back in Frank Gore) still manages to be one of the most effective running teams. Obviously, Washington had their star running back on a 7th-round salary...that'll change, I'm sure.
The point that I'm making is that not only does having an elite running back not help you win a lot in the NFL, it might actually hurt you. It takes salary away from other positions where it could be put to more effective use, and the additional return on investment from an elite back compared to an average back is not so substantial.
|
|
|
|
