I can't think of the analytics term, but the term refers to the cost per win of a particular position relative to other positions. A team could figure out an offensive strategy that accounts for a highly productive RB that can be signed at a low rate has a better cost per win value than a QB on a second or third contract. At that moment, teams may decide if they find the right RB, they can
pay them much more than the elite RB's of this time and have a chance at outthinking other teams.

But to be honest, I don't know if that day is coming soon.

It seems teams at the lower end would have the cap money to overspend on a RB or the desperation to try a RB-friendly system. But unless a team or two hits on this new strategy there won't be enough evidence for an elite team to switch styles. Without a sense of elite RB's being demand, there won't be the bidding wars to dramatically drive up their salaries.

Also, I don't think there are many backs with the skill and extraordinary talents to be worthy of those large contracts with mid 10 figure guaranteed signing bonuses.

You had Gurley and Zeke. They had a breakout season but simply wore their bodies into the ground in the process.

The only backs like that now are Henry, McCaffery, and the back from the Giants (whose name I can't seem to remember).

And there seem to be fewer elite backs coming out of college than there are potentially elite QB's.

<--- Me when my head hits the pillow