That doesn't sound right. Replacement-level players are replacement level because there are a lot of faceless duplicate versions of them around. I can maybe buy the top 5 part though. They aren't faceless. But you see it with the Bears. David Montgomery goes out and they lose nothing because they have one of the other 90. Doesn't mean they both are replacement-level, just means they are easily replaced. There's not really a good way to explain it because there aren't any other positions in sports where almost everyone is a "good" player. But it's like a regular profession. You can get an accountant from any of the B-schools ranked from 11-25 and all would be good at their jobs. You can't just get a guy that took an accounting class in HS and expect the same ability. But also there's a few Stanford guys out there that are simply worth the assets it takes to get them. The diference is there are about 300,000 accounting positions to be filled, and there are only 70 or so RB jobs to fill in the world. Similar to how the RBs ranked rom 11-25 aren't much diferent, the guys ranked from 60-80 are even MORE SO not at all different, and you haven't even had to scrape the Div II College barrel yet. I'm just saying the bottom 5 RBs aren't nearly as much poor than the top 5 RBs are good. There's just no way.