The Kansas City Chiefs and the NFL's growing running back problem
The history of the running back position in the NFL is a storied one. Names like Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, and Adrian Peterson were not only some of the biggest stars in the history of the league but they're viewed as some of the most athletically gifted and talented players the NFL has ever seen. Fast forward to 2023, specifically to the current running back market and the team-building economics in play, and the future of this once-great position is now threatened. And there's no better example of how teams are approaching the position than the Kansas City Chiefs.
As NFL teams have become more savvy about how to build their teams in relation to the salary cap and big dollar contracts for star players, the running back position has been the position to see its value diminish most. That isn't because there aren't still elite talents at running back; rather, it's because teams have figured out that you don't have to have one to build a Super Bowl winner. When you combine that with the fact that running back performance falls off at a younger age than any other position, you get the perfect storm for diminished running back contracts.
The Chiefs have won two of the last four Super Bowls and neither of those teams had a highly-paid star running back. In 2019, the Chiefs utilized a combination of Damien Williams, LeSean McCoy, and Darrel Williams, none of which rushed for over 500 yards in the regular season. This past season the Chiefs used a 7th-round rookie (Isiah Pacheco) and a 30-year-old veteran (Jerick McKinnon) who was on his third team making near the veteran minimum on their way to another Super Bowl win.
If we look at salary cap dollars spent on the position in those two seasons, it definitely makes a strong case for not needing to pay big for a star running back. In 2019, the trio of Damien Williams, LeSean McCoy, and Darrel Williams had a combined cap hit of about $5.25 million. In 2022, the trio of Isiah Pacheco, Jerick McKinnon, and Clyde Edwards-Helaire had a cap hit of about $4.7 million, and over half of that was from Edwards-Helaire who was the third string back for most of the season.
Edwards-Helaire is actually another strong argument for not investing premium assets at the running back position. The Chiefs invested a first-round pick in him in the 2020 NFL Draft and just two years later, a tandem featuring a seventh-round rookie and veteran third-down back was giving the team better production at half the cost. That is what is at the heart of the running back pay issue: solid, cheap replacements.
The entire NFL has become a passing league and the money is shifting to positions that are seen as indispensable to helping or stopping the passing game.
People may argue that it's easy to get by at running back when you have Patrick Mahomes at quarterback, but the fact is that the entire NFL has become a passing league and the money is shifting to positions that are seen as indispensable to helping or stopping the passing game. Teams that build their offense around a running back are typically doing so to get by with an average or worse quarterback and once they have a quarterback worthy of carrying their offense, that's where their focus on the field and with their checkbook will go.
The Chiefs have opted to spend their money on offense at quarterback, pass protectors, and pass catchers and to make due at running back. In fact, if the Chiefs were to part ways with Edwards-Helaire before the season starts to go with the trio of Pacheco, McKinnon, and undrafted rookie Deneric Prince, their combined running back cap hit would be a staggeringly low $2.7 million. That's about the same amount they are paying punter Tommy Townsend this season and they'd still be the odds-on favorite to win the Super Bowl despite having arguably the smallest investment at running back in the NFL.
So at this point some of you may be thinking that this is the end of the discussion. Running backs just need to deal with the fact that big dollar second contracts just aren't a good investment in today's NFL for a team trying to win a Super Bowl. While I believe that statement is true, I don't believe it should be the end of the discussion.
When you factor in all their different revenue streams, the NFL brought in about $19 BILLION dollars in 2022. The business is booming and pretty much everyone involved is profiting from the soaring popularity and financial success—everyone except the running backs.
Running backs continue to be a big part of every NFL game that is attended and watched by millions of fans worldwide. They often touch the ball more than any other player on the team besides the quarterback. Their jerseys are still top sellers. Their faces are plastered everywhere by the team's promotional and social media teams. They are top commodities in fantasy football leagues and household names for NFL fans.
I would argue that in the history of all of professional sports, there has never been a greater discrepancy in fame/notoriety of a position to how they are paid compared to their peers than there is right now for running backs in the NFL. If you polled fans and NFL players/coaches, players like Saquon Barkley and Jonathan Taylor would probably have been voted the best player on each of their prospective teams over the last few seasons, but both the New York Giants and Indianapolis Colts are both reluctant to pay them beyond their rookie contracts.
Herein lies the problem. In all of profession sports, the NFL's running back position is the only one where their entire perceived prime is cost controlled. Running back production typically falls off during the age range of an NFL second contract. That short lifespan of an NFL running back is highlighted by the fact that only eight running backs age 30 and up are currently under contract with an NFL team. Those eight players are:
- Cordarrelle Patterson - Atlanta Falcons
- Raheem Mostert - Miami Dolphins
- Brandon Bolden - Las Vegas Raiders
- Ty Montgomery - New England Patriots
- Ameer Abdullah - Las Vegas Raiders
- Latavius Murray - Buffalo Bills
- Jerick McKinnon - Kansas City Chiefs
- Melvin Gordon - Baltimore Ravens
That's it. That's the list of 30-year-old NFL running backs. Several of those guys aren't even a safe bet to make the 53-man roster this season, and even if they do, the average cap hit for those eight players this season is only about $1.8 million. Of those eight players, only Raheem Mostert has a chance to be the starting running back for his team.
The takeaway here is that the perceived short lifespan of an NFL running back is very real and even the few that stretch their careers into their 30s don't see the big free agent paydays that other positions do. McKinnon was a very important contributor for KC last season, scoring 9 touchdowns and providing great pass protection for KC's MVP quarterback. Despite that, he only earned a one-year $1.1 million dollar contract this offseason.
For comparison, there are currently eleven wide receivers that are in their 30s and on deals that average $10 million or more per season. Even other "non-premium" positions see much more financial payoff if they are good enough to play into their 30s. There are currently ten safeties in their 30s that are on contracts that pay them an average of $5 million or more per season. Simply put, at any other position in the NFL, if you are one of the best at your position you can play into your 30s and easily make five to ten times more than running backs do.
The reason for that short career is the physical toll the running back position takes on the body. Saquon Barkley had 352 offensive touches last season. Justin Jefferson led all receivers with 132 offensive touches. That's 220 more times Barkley opened himself up for hits than Jefferson did and most of the time Jefferson had a 200-pound defensive back tackling him, not a 240-pound linebacker or a 300-pound defensive lineman.
So what's the solution? You certainly can't force teams to sign big-money, long-term contracts that they think could be a detriment to building an overall winning roster. You can't mandate big-dollar rookie contracts for running backs taken early in the draft because that will just push down their draft stock even more than it already is.
I also don't believe that the solution is to do nothing. I don't think it's right for running backs to make the same amount as backup offensive linemen while they lead their teams in offensive touches and become household names while destroying their bodies for a league that had almost $20 billion in revenue last season. If that is the case we may never see a Barry Sanders or an Adrian Peterson again. The position will devolve into a sea of interchangeable backs that weren't talented enough to play positions that make more money.
I believe that a middle ground can be found using two systems that the NFL already has in place. Those being their Performance Based Bonuses and their Proven Performance Escalators. These systems are designed to help players that are out performing their rookie deals, the problem is that both these systems are currently set up in a way that hurts running backs instead of helping the position that arguably needs it the most.
If the running back position is the only one in football that the league doesn't see value in doing big contracts after their rookie deal, then the systems to give bonuses to players on rookie deals should be designed to at the very least, help them as much as other positions, if not more than any other position.
The NFL's Performance Based Bonus system gives each team a $1 million dollar pool of uncapped bonuses to give their players that outperform their contract. The formula used to distribute that pool of bonus money is supposed to be weighted towards players that aren't making much, but are making significant contributions to their team. By that standard, you would imagine that Isiah Pacheco would have earned himself one of the better bonuses in the league last year as he led his team in rushing and offensive touches on a seventh-round rookie contract.
Unfortunately for Pacheco that isn't the case because the NFL formula that determines how much a player contributed to their team for this bonus is based on the percentage of snaps that the player plays. So since Pacheco only played about 30% of the offensive snaps his contribution was deemed to be small. Trey Smith, on the other hand, earned a nice $663,756 bonus because he played about 90% of the offensive snaps on a 6th-round rookie contract.
I'm happy for Smith and certainly think he earned every dollar of his bonus. I'm also not arguing that Pacheco is more valuable than Smith, but you can see how this bonus formula doesn't work for running backs. In fact, of the top 25 Performance Based Bonuses given out for 2022, none went to running backs. Offensive linemen and defensive backs made up 23 of the top 25 bonuses because their positions lend themselves to playing a higher percentage of snaps.
The NFL's Proven Performance Escalators system isn't any better. This system is designed to give players on a rookie contract a raise in their fourth season if they have qualified during the first three years of their deal. There are three tiers of raises that a player can qualify for. For players drafted in rounds 3-7 they can qualify for a level one raise in their fourth season if they played more than 35% of the snaps in two of their first three seasons. They can earn a level two raise if they play 55% or more of the snaps in all three seasons and they can earn a level three raise if they are selected to the Pro Bowl on the first vote in any of the three seasons.
On the surface that sounds reasonable, but let's look at the Chiefs rookies last season that logged a qualifying season for one of those raises. Jaylen Watson and Joshua Williams both logged a qualifying season for a level one raise in their fourth year because they played more than 35% of the defensive snaps. Isiah Pacheco did not log a qualifying season for a level one raise because he only played 30% of the offensive snaps.
Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not begrudging Watson and Williams for earning a qualified season. I'm happy for them and am excited for their futures in Kansas City. I'm also not here to argue the value of a cornerback vs the value of a running back, but I think we can all agree that Joshua Williams logged a qualified season for just playing 35% of the defensive snaps while Pacheco didn't qualify despite leading the team in rushing and offensive touches is ridiculous.
I went back and looked at the last three seasons (2020-2022) worth of players that logged a qualifying season for a level one raise. In total there were 153 qualifying season across all positions and only 7 of them were by running backs. The only running back that earned a level one raise based on playing 35% or more of the snaps in two out of those three seasons was Antonio Gibson. That's it.
Don't get me wrong, the idea behind the performance escalator system is good. L'Jarius Sneed and Mike Danna both earned significant raises for this coming season because of this program. Sneed's salary for 2023 went from $1.168 million to $2.9 and Danna's went from $1.075 to $2.8 million. They both earned those raises. The program is good. The formula for running backs is not.
This is where I feel like the NFL has the opportunity to fix things. My recommendation would be to increase the pool of uncapped bonus money for their Performance Based Bonuses from $1 million to $2 million per team and change the formula for qualifying for offensive skill players from percentage of snaps played to a certain percentage of offensive touches. That would greatly enhance the bonuses going to running backs on rookie deals and because the overall pool was increased it shouldn't take that bonus money away from other positions that are currently receiving them.
I would also change the formula for the Proven Performance Escalators raises for skill players from a percentage of snaps to a percentage of offensive touches. That would mean a lot more running backs would qualify for a fourth-year raise on their rookie deal in addition to the Performance Based Bonuses that they would likely be receiving as well.
For a player like Pacheco, if those changes existed it would give him a chance to earn significantly more during the life of his rookie deal. If he plays out his current four-year rookie deal as it is now he will earn a total of about $3.74 million. If he was able to earn a Performance-Based Bonus (similar to what Trey Smith earned this season) during the first three years of his deal and then qualified for a level one Proven Performance Escalator raise (like Sneed and Danna earned this year) he would see his rookie deal earnings rise from $3.74 million to about $7.44 million. That's almost double the earnings for Pacheco with almost no salary cap change for the Chiefs.
I know the difference between $3.7 million and $7.4 million seems trivial to those of us working regular jobs, but doubling the amount of money you make is huge for anyone and while it likely wouldn't keep the top running backs from being upset that their teams don't want to pay them huge second contracts like other positions, it would at least give a position that is currently getting a lot of physical wear and tear a needed boost in a league that is bringing in billions of dollars each year off their work and fame.
I would actually be in favor of even bigger uncapped bonuses for running backs to reward them for their production on the field and the toll that comes along with it, but I think the relatively simple adjustments to bonus systems the NFL already has in place that I have suggested is the best place to start. I can't fault NFL teams for trying to be smart about where they spend their cap dollars, but I can't stand the thought of a future where there aren't any more elite running backs, so something needs to be done. If someone has an even better way to address the problem I am open to hearing it.
manual