Given all we know about how dependent RBs are on their environment and how much of RB success is driven by other factors, I'm starting to wonder if it's even possible to fairly evaluate how good they are in the NFL.

Bear with me a second here...

Almost no RB is immune to a bad situation, and most NFL runners can look like Pro-Bowlers if put into a good one.

Quite aside from quantifying their value, even fairly evaluating what they're doing is hard.

Part of the problem is that the baseline is high. Every RB that makes it to the NFL is talented as hell, so they're ALL going to make plus-plays on top of what the blocking gives them, so it's a constant battle to fight the idea that it's the RB driving the success.

The key is how many of those plays does he make and what would the next back do?

The answer is usually something very similar.

Changing quality of the RB usually affects production a small amount vs changing the quality of the blocking.

The only real way RBs can stand out now is the pass game.

A McCaffrey, or Kamara etc is still far harder to replicate.

So when we talk about the 'best backs in the NFL' do we need to confine ourselves to just those that can consistently buck a bad situation, or plus receivers?