Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Panther not worried about CMC's high snap count


Johnny Rockets

Recommended Posts

Interesting article from the Observer:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article221598590.html

McCaffrey doesn’t just lead the league’s top running backs in percentage of snaps played — he’s not even in the same stratosphere as the other nine. He has played 96 percent of Carolina’s snaps this season, and the running back closest to matching that is Dallas’ Ezekiel Elliott, who has played 89 percent of the Cowboys’ snaps.

For Panthers fans worried about McCaffrey’s longevity at his current snap rate, this stat could get you through the night — his usage rate (touches per snaps played) of 32 percent is the second-lowest of any of the NFL’s 10 most-productive running backs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Johnny Rockets said:

Interesting article from the Observer:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article221598590.html

McCaffrey doesn’t just lead the league’s top running backs in percentage of snaps played — he’s not even in the same stratosphere as the other nine. He has played 96 percent of Carolina’s snaps this season, and the running back closest to matching that is Dallas’ Ezekiel Elliott, who has played 89 percent of the Cowboys’ snaps.

For Panthers fans worried about McCaffrey’s longevity at his current snap rate, this stat could get you through the night — his usage rate (touches per snaps played) of 32 percent is the second-lowest of any of the NFL’s 10 most-productive running backs.

Aka CMC is a chess piece and is highly efficient when his number is called in the play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, countryboi said:

This is not a long term plan, most backs can handle 300 plus touches for maybe 3-4 seasons before their body just completely breaks down

Depends on the player, similar players like Curtis Martin, Tomlinson, Faulk, etc. handled it for a decade plus. And McC isn't taking nearly the beating that more traditional RBs take pounding the ball up the middle. I don't see any reason he can't be a guy who lasts into his 30s as a productive player. Maybe he even transitions to more of a receiver late in his career too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, countryboi said:

This is not a long term plan, most backs can handle 300 plus touches for maybe 3-4 seasons before their body just completely breaks down

um clearly it is b/c Rivera said they were doing this going in despite Hurney signing CJ, then cutting CJ. Also look for Torrey to come back in and eat up that roster spot on Sunday as DJ and Samuel go absent and we wonder what happened after losing 33-12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shoudn't come as such a shock.  When Turner was in San Diego LT got all of the snaps except a few.  After his first contract, they let one MIchael Turner walk and he came to the Falcons.  Can anybody name the Dallas Cowboys RB behind Emmett Smith?  Norv has always fed the number one back because he is old school like that.  To me, it wasn't a surprise that CJ didn't get hardly any touches.  Norv's number two back has never gotten many touches and once he found out CMAC could take the bulk of the load, CJ became expendable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NorthTryon said:

It shoudn't come as such a shock.  When Turner was in San Diego LT got all of the snaps except a few.  After his first contract, they let one MIchael Turner walk and he came to the Falcons.  Can anybody name the Dallas Cowboys RB behind Emmett Smith?  Norv has always fed the number one back because he is old school like that.  To me, it wasn't a surprise that CJ didn't get hardly any touches.  Norv's number two back has never gotten many touches and once he found out CMAC could take the bulk of the load, CJ became expendable.  

Norv did have Sproles complementing LT for a time there, and for a 3-4 year stretch Sproles had nearly 10 touches per game...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, t96 said:

Norv did have Sproles complementing LT for a time there, and for a 3-4 year stretch Sproles had nearly 10 touches per game...

Yep, you're right.  I forgot about Sproles.  I remember when Ron first got here, he kept saying he wanted a Sproles type back.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, a large % of his snaps feature him as a decoy. He's so versatile that defenses have to honor his presence on the field. 

The Steelers addressed that by forcing him to stay in and protect last week, so that could be a new blueprint for teams to deal with CMC and Norv will have to counter that.

Good news is most teams are not setup to blitz as effectively as the Steelers and with the big lead they had they could afford to continue rolling the dice by sending blitzes to hold our offense in check. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Johnny Rockets said:

Interesting article from the Observer:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article221598590.html

McCaffrey doesn’t just lead the league’s top running backs in percentage of snaps played — he’s not even in the same stratosphere as the other nine. He has played 96 percent of Carolina’s snaps this season, and the running back closest to matching that is Dallas’ Ezekiel Elliott, who has played 89 percent of the Cowboys’ snaps.

For Panthers fans worried about McCaffrey’s longevity at his current snap rate, this stat could get you through the night — his usage rate (touches per snaps played) of 32 percent is the second-lowest of any of the NFL’s 10 most-productive running backs.

Even if his touches are limited, he is still doing things like blocking.

Also, consider we rely on one guy TOO much, what happens if he is out? We aren't god of personnel and scheming like the Patriots, think it's suffice to say if CMC went down we'd be fuged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...