What happened to the running back market? "Blame the analytics community"

Running backs are confused. They're angry. And for good reason.

Pro football has targeted the running back position as a vehicle for saving cap dollars that can be devoted to other positions. While it has become a major point of contention in recent weeks for the league's current veteran running backs, it has been happening for years.

At one level, it's a basic matter of supply and demand. Every major college produces every single year a tailback capable of performing in the NFL, if: (1) the line can open holes; (2) the player can keep possession of the ball when hit by NFL-caliber defenders; and (3) the player can be trusted to pick up blitzers in pass protection.

Every year, dozens of running backs head to the draft. Some are drafted. Plenty aren't. Some who aren't get signed as free agents. Some of those who are undrafted (like Austin Ekeler) become great running backs in the NFL.

This guarantee of a constant flow of more players at the position makes those already playing the position interchangeable. It's no different than kickers and punters. There are more good ones than the game needs. So, as a matter of basic NFL business, why not flip from an older and more expensive player to a younger and cheaper one?

Look at what the Cowboys did after the 2014 season. DeMarco Murray set the franchise single-season rushing record, with 1,845 yards. More than Hall of Famer Tony Dorsett. More than Hall of Famer Emmitt Smith. Murray also led the league that year.

And, in 2015, the Cowboys let him walk away in free agency.

To replace Murray, the Cowboys signed McFadden signed a two-year, $5.85 million deal. Murray inked a five-year, $40 million contract with the Eagles.

In his first year in Philadelphia, Murray rushed for 702 yards in 15 games. That same season, McFadden produced 1,089 yards.

That's the mindset. All players are interchangeable parts in a broader football machine. Some are more interchangeable than others. Running backs fall into that category.

One source with extensive knowledge of the dynamics that have resulted in the current running back market explained it like this: "Fundamentally, people don’t think that it’s a position that leads to greater expected points and surplus value. It’s a salary cap league, with finite resources. That matters. So teams will spend on quarterbacks, receivers, pass rushers, and corner. Those are the positions that provide the most surplus."

Surplus value is the key. When paying more to a player than most players at a given position get, what is the team getting? Is it enough to justify the investment? At key positions where the best players are so much better than the average player, it is. At positions like running back, it isn't.

As the source added: "Blame Mike Shanahan and the analytics community."

It was Mike Shanahan who first showed that he could plug any running back into his system and have success moving the ball on the ground. After Terrell Davis suffered a torn ACL, Olandis Gary stepped in with a 1,159-yard season. The next year, Mike Anderson had 1,489.

Mike's son, Kyle, has done the same thing. Every year since he was hired, Kyle Shanahan's 49ers have had a different rushing leader: Carlos Hyde (2017); Matt Breida (2018); Raheem Mostert (2019); Jeff Wilson (2020); Elijah Mitchell (2021); and Christian McCaffrey (2022).

The irony, of course, is that the 49ers currently have the highest-paid running back in football, in Christian McCaffrey on the roster. They clearly believe he has surplus value.

Surely, at least a few others in the NFL do, too. McCaffrey, while great, isn't an outlier. Contractually, however, he is.

So that's the problem. That's the issue. As much as the veteran running backs want it to change, it won't. Not in an environment with a salary cap that lumps all positions into the same bucket.

Any solution must come from some other place, whether it's a quicker path to free agency or (our preference) a league-wide fund that pays running backs for yards and touchdowns and playing time.

The current system for playing players created the market dynamics. It's hard to imagine the current system dramatically changing simply because older players aren't happy about their financial situation.

Especially when there's an annual group of young players waiting for the chance to eventually become underpaid veterans.