Bijan Robinson, Jonathan Taylor and Jahmyr Gibbs got paid this summer to complete an active offseason for NFL running backs with new deals. Are front offices making the right calls?
Three days in August may have changed the history of the NFL running back market.
From Aug. 4-6, Bijan Robinson (Atlanta Falcons), Jonathan Taylor (Indianapolis Colts) and Jahmyr Gibbs (Detroit Lions) signed the three biggest contracts in the position’s history in average salary per year. Robinson’s deal is worth $22.25 million a year, Taylor’s $22 million a year and Gibbs’ $22.5 million a year.
Now, compared to other positions, this isn’t a lot of money. The aforementioned APY range is equivalent to quarterback Malik Willis, wide receiver Courtland Sutton, edge rusher George Karlaftis or tackle Jake Matthews — all of whom are outside the top 10 paid in their respective positions and not considered to be in the top three production-wise.
Gibbs, Robinson and Taylor are at the peak of their game, though. Since 2023, this trio ranks in the top 10 running backs in touches, scrimmage yards and total touchdowns.
This unprecedented movement in the market will be instrumental in understanding how teams view the position moving forward. Before, paying more than $15 million was unheard of save for a few marquee names like Saquon Barkley and Christian McCaffrey, who earned deals worth $20.6 million and $19 million a year, respectively, in each of the past two offseasons.
The reasons were simple: Running backs were considered to have the shortest career lifespan with the highest injury probability, and the production gap was minimal from top to bottom. Three other running backs who earned solid contracts this offseason — De’Von Achane (Miami Dolphins, $16 million APY), Breece Hall (New York Jets, $14.3 million APY) and Travis Etienne Jr. (New Orleans Saints, $12 million APY) — rank anywhere from seventh to 17th in scrimmage yards, touchdowns and touches since 2023. They’re good players, but not in the same elite status as the aforementioned trio.
So after this offseason, has the sentiment changed regarding the position with these new deals? Is raising the salary ceiling for an elite running back worth it now?
Let’s explore.
Do NFL Teams Historically Undervalue Running Backs?
First, some history.
The running back market rarely saw huge spikes in contracts before this offseason. From 2011 to 2023, the position APY grew by just 112.68%, which ranked dead last of any position and below the salary cap’s own growth over that span (187.33%). Adrian Peterson’s 2011 deal worth $14.2 million APY stood unmatched for seven years, until Ezekiel Elliott and Todd Gurley’s $14-$15 million APY deals in 2018.
Why? Teams saw the writing on the wall with the wear and tear of the position. DeMarco Murray, who led the NFL in scrimmage yards, rushing touchdowns and total touches in 2014 with the Dallas Cowboys, signed a four-year deal with the Philadelphia Eagles worth just $8 million per year — four years after Peterson and Chris Johnson signed deals worth more than $13 million.
Meanwhile, Gurley, Elliott and others like David Johnson, Le’Veon Bell and Dalvin Cook declined in production soon after their lucrative extensions, likely because of the heavy workload and high touch volume in their respective offenses.
Only McCaffrey really lived up to his record-setting deal worth $16 million a year with the Carolina Panthers in 2020 before being traded to the San Francisco 49ers during the 2022 season. But that production hasn’t equated to Super Bowls, as the 49ers have, to date, failed to win a ring with McCaffrey.
Simply put: Teams would rather pay other positions like quarterback, receiver, offensive line, or edge rusher than running backs, where it was easier to identify talent that lived up to the contract. They could find comparable production at a better value when it came to running backs.
Looking at positional spending over the past decade (2016-25), spending top dollar at running back has offered little return on investment when it comes to playoff success.
If we were to break that table down into more specific tiers, it’s no more flattering at the top. The league’s top three highest-spending teams at the position in those seasons averaged $14.7 million per year but managed just a 43.3% playoff appearance rate, two deep playoff runs, and zero Super Bowl titles. Meanwhile, teams spending roughly $10.4 million less per year (low spendings at a $4.3 million average in the graphic above) reached the postseason at a league-best 45.0% rate.
And if you look directly at the biggest deals since Peterson’s record was broken in 2018, the problem became obvious: Seven of the teams that signed the 13 biggest RBs contracts since failed to make the playoffs the following year. Gurley’s 2018 Los Angeles Rams squad got close to winning a Super Bowl, but lost and didn’t get back until a year after they released him. Barkley, who signed a meager $12.58 million APY contract with the Eagles before a 2024 season they won the Super Bowl, only made it to the divisional round the year after he renegotiated to make $20.6 million a year.
So, if high running back spending yields almost no additional playoff success, teams have little incentive to write massive checks — even for elite talent.
Robinson, Gibbs and Taylor Are Bucking the Trend
If paying for top-flight running backs rarely equates to winning it all, why did the Falcons, Lions and Colts do it?
Because while spending money at running back hasn’t historically guaranteed postseason success, fielding an elite rushing game certainly does. Over the past decade, teams boasting top-tier rushing offenses reached the postseason at a significantly higher rate than those with average or subpar ground games.
Here lies the modern NFL dilemma: To consistently earn a playoff spot, you need elite efficiency on the ground. But finding game-changing talent that generates as elite of production as Robinson, Gibbs and Taylor all did prior to signing their record-setting extensions is exceptionally rare.
Up until now, the Falcons, Lions and Colts got that market-leading production on surplus-value contracts (rookie deals for Robinson and Gibbs and a lower $14 million APY deal for Taylor in 2024). By extending them early, these front offices are making a calculated, high-risk bet: they are paying top-of-the-market money to lock in guaranteed, dual-threat offensive engines rather than rolling the dice on cheaper, unproven talent.
It is undeniably dangerous strategy. History wasn’t kind to the teams that paid for Bell, Gurley or Elliott — players were at the top of their craft before signing huge contracts, only to plummet toward obscurity soon after due to declining production or injury.
However, given that modern cap expansion softens the financial hit to roughly 7.3-7.5% of total cap space, these teams are betting that securing a proven top-tier ground attack outweighs the historical risk of overpaying the position.
So, Is It Worth Paying Running Backs?
Determining whether to pay a running back top-of-the-market money for the position is a sound investment comes down to a clear distinction: Paying for baseline volume is a losing proposition, but paying for elite, top-tier game-changers remains a smart tactical move.
The crux is that teams have to have a good running game to succeed, and the best way to do that is to either develop great talent or pay for it. Neither is easy, and paying for it can also hurt a team on the back-end if the contract doesn’t age well – either due to injury or production degradation.
Modern salary cap growth makes these record-setting numbers far easier to digest, though. With recent historic spikes pushing the salary cap ceiling past $300 million, new contracts in the $22 million APY range account for roughly 7.3% to 7.5% of a team’s total cap space. Meanwhile, previous deals for McCaffrey, Elliott and Gurley accounted for around 8% of their team’s cap space, and Peterson accounted for a whopping 11.8% of the Vikings’ 2011 cap space.
Now, paying a running back top-market money is equivalent to paying a mid-tier starter at wide receiver or edge rusher, yet it secures league-leading production. It makes paying for players like Achane, Hall and Etienne more palatable, as all three count for less than 5.4% of their respective teams’ salary cap despite making at $12-16 million a year.
Most NFL contracts are risky, and in the past, running back deals were the riskiest. That may still be the case, but the level of production has improved with the advent of dual-threat running backs who can rush and catch, giving more leeway to bigger deals when a team is paying a player who can do two things.
It’s why McCaffrey remains one of the highest-paid running backs in NFL history, and why Gibbs and Robinson were shoo-ins for record-setting deals after just three years.
Whether this trend continues remains to be seen as the landscape continues to transform and NFL offenses continue to innovate at the position.
For more coverage, follow along on social media on Instagram, Bluesky, Facebook and X.
Are the NFL’s Highest-Paid Running Backs a Good Investment? Opta Analyst.
Hence then, the article about are the nfl s highest paid running backs a good investment was published today ( ) and is available on The Analyst ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Are the NFL’s Highest-Paid Running Backs a Good Investment? )
Also on site :