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!

     

CMC


Calboyz13
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, SazmoRanger said:

I’m fine with letting him walk too. My point like others in this thread... it’s not hard finding productive RBs in the league. Super star QBs like Watson are harder to find and are a hell of a lot more important.  

I'm not a fan of paying RBs, but there's a handful in the league that you do.

McCaffrey is one of those - he's a mismatch player. Unbelievable receiver out of the backfield (he could absolutely play Slot WR if he wanted to) and a home run threat every time he carries the ball. 

We'd have won a couple more games this year (easily) if he was healthy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, spizike99x said:

He was the only reason we won any games last year. Without him on the old staff we go 0-16 easy. This year better staff better overall team we almost beat the DEFENDING SB champs because of him. If he would’ve been healthy the entire year we’d have been a playoff team over the Bears. Please tell me I’m wrong. We lost 8 games by a score or less CMC changes that in a heart beat. Why would we want to give up him plus more to be in negative equity for a rebuild. All we need is two good drafts, some dead money to fall off the books, smart FA signings and guess what we are right back in there. Bringing in Watson will be like what we did to Cam but worse. I swear some of you guys are the reason this fan base is looked upon as foolish. Y’all already let almost half the stadium fill with other teams fans. Now you want to give away our future to get your black whipping boy to blame for the next shortcomings for the franchise. Just stop, please. 

Revisionist history, he was force fed to get 1k x 1k.  The games we won was because the defenses hadn't figured out our QB, soon as they did we couldn't win any more.  CMC couldn't put this team on his back and win.

Edited by jfra78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

I'm not a fan of paying RBs, but there's a handful in the league that you do.

McCaffrey is one of those - he's a mismatch player. Unbelievable receiver out of the backfield (he could absolutely play Slot WR if he wanted to) and a home run threat every time he carries the ball. 

We'd have won a couple more games this year (easily) if he was healthy. 

All this is true, I’m not sure your point? Subject isn’t questioning CMC, his worth, and his contract. The subject is would you trade Watson for CMC. Would be an easy yes for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SazmoRanger said:

All this is true, I’m not sure your point? Subject isn’t questioning CMC, his worth, and his contract. The subject is would you trade Watson for CMC. Would be an easy yes for me. 

I'd trade my Alfa Romeo for a Ferrari too.

Doesn't mean the Ferrari dealership would accept that trade. The Texans will want A BOATLOAD of picks if Watson forces their hand. They're not looking to take on expensive contracts, not when they're already eating Watson's dead money. 

Edited by OldhamA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WarHeel said:

What makes anybody think Watson wants to come here with a busted O-line and the absence of the best weapon we’ve had in Carolina since Steve Smith? QBs salivate at the notion of handing off or passing to a guy like CMC. He makes them look that damn good. Stop with the nonsense.

I'm not talking about him wanting to come here or the current state of our o-line etc. I'm talking about the career positional value of Watson vs CMC. Both are upper end of their respective positions, but the QB position is by far more valuable than the RB position. IF I was forced to choose between having Watson OR CMC, I would choose Watson based solely on the likelihood his career would be longer and the value of a franchise QB exceeds that of a franchise RB. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

I'd trade my Alfa Romeo for a Ferrari too.

Doesn't mean the Ferrari dealership would accept that trade. The Texans will want A BOATLOAD of picks if Watson forces their hand. They're not looking to take on expensive contracts, not when they're already eating Watson's dead money. 

I already said as much in this thread.... 

C5E2CDB9-3164-49D3-9B18-CBFFEDFBC146.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

I'm not talking about him wanting to come here or the current state of our o-line etc. I'm talking about the career positional value of Watson vs CMC. Both are upper end of their respective positions, but the QB position is by far more valuable than the RB position. IF I was forced to choose between having Watson OR CMC, I would choose Watson based solely on the likelihood his career would be longer and the value of a franchise QB exceeds that of a franchise RB. 

I mentioned it because people seem to think the only way we could pull off a trade is to give up our biggest asset. QB is the most important position in football but you don’t trade your best weapon leaving your new franchise QB without a future HOF weapon. 

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

I mentioned it because people seem to think the only way we could pull off a trade is to give up our biggest asset. QB is the most important position in football but you don’t trade your best weapon leaving your new franchise QB without a future HOF weapon. 

It’s hard to get through to dumb people.

  • Pie 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to compete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...