Some insight into McCaffrey...

[Fox007]

19 minutes ago, Mage said:

Lol Fournette isn't a good back and wasn't a good pick either.  Not really sure what the article is trying to suggest honestly?  It could have made the argument that McCaffrey wasn't a good pick without also trying to draw parallels between him and Fournette.  Fournette just so happens to play for an absolutely loaded offense.

 

That part of the article was kilgos obviously and makes 0 sense at all. There is no parallel he fuging went before our pick and ask the Jags if they'd rather have Mahomes or Watson anyway and already have been building up a team around a franchise QB.

WHen you have to defend Brady any RB is good just look at the 5,555 RBs that he's played with and has had run game yards whenever they want them see 28-3 they won that on a what again? a pass or a rush from one of the 300 RBs they have?

[Fox007]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Skill wise, McCaffrey blows Fournette away. Doubt anyone would argue that.

As far as availability though, Tampa is using Fournette smarter than we are McCaffrey.

(and to be fair, getting more consistent results)

They have a real coaching staff

[Mage]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Skill wise, McCaffrey blows Fournette away. Doubt anyone would argue that.

As far as availability though, Tampa is using Fournette smarter than we are McCaffrey.

(and to be fair, getting more consistent results)

Yes, but Fournette wasn't a good pick either.  The article is insinuating that Fournette was the better pick, hence the opening statement, "while McCaffrey was headed to the locker-room, Fournette was scoring the game-winning touchdown."

Yes, it is fair to argue that extending McCaffrey at that $ amount wasn't smart.  But it is hard to take the article seriously when it largely seems to be suggesting that the Panthers would have been better off with Fournette.  We all saw what Fournette was in Jacksonville, and they moved on from him.  He's effective now because he plays with Tom Brady and a godly group of receivers.  I'm sure if the Panthers had Brady, Evans, AB, Godwin, Gronk, Brate, Howard, and two great book-end tackles, we'd be getting more consistent results too.

The article should have focused on the contract and taking McCaffrey where we did.  But I have no earthly clue as to why it is trying to compare McCaffrey and Fournette.  Fournette wasn't very good in Jacksonville beyond one year.  And he isn't good now - he just plays for a far, far better team.  McCaffrey was clearly the better player and the better pick (VS Fournette).  Any other suggestion is nonsense.  

[tiger7_88]

Sorry, the central tenet of the articles, that CMC is injury prone, is incomplete?

The question is, is he injury prone? Or is does he just have WAY more opportunities for injury due to his over-use?  And over-used as the latest tool 

I call this the Carolina-Cam Syndrome.

[Catsfan69]

Injuries are often just bad luck.

 

You guys know this right?

[CRA]

2 minutes ago, Fox007 said:

That part of the article was kilgos obviously and makes 0 sense at all. There is no parallel he fuging went before our pick and ask the Jags if they'd rather have Mahomes or Watson anyway and already have been building up a team around a franchise QB.

WHen you have to defend Brady any RB is good just look at the 5,555 RBs that he's played with and has had run game yards whenever they want them see 28-3 they won that on a what again? a pass or a rush from one of the 300 RBs they have?

I agree, the Fournette aspect of the article is weird.  Are they arguing the correct move was to of traded up (and wasted draft captial) just to pick a different RB?  One who has had a pretty pedestrian and disappointing career for a top 5 draft pick?   Hard to argue the smarter move is to pick the well built but vastly inferior RB. 

Just don't draft a RB in the first.  That's what the article should of said.  Build a OL for your QB.  Then you can go in the trash bin like Tampa did......and pick up a Fournette. 

[Fox007]

1 minute ago, CRA said:

Just don't draft a RB in the first.  That's what the article should of said.  Build a OL for your QB.  Then you can go in the trash bin like Tampa did......and pick up a Fournette. 

If the Panthers never drafted a RB in the first round in my lifetime it'd be too soon.

Its a stupid move and for analytics type poo its for sure a wrong move. The analytics say to not do that. Just bad value and you can plug RBs in from all over its just how it works now.

CMC is a skilled player there is no doubt about that but what did a 1k rush and 1k pass yard player give us?

Now just compare that with having even the 10th ranked QB in the league and see what that alone gives you given the same circumstances, same team, same everything. Have to go QB and OL to protect the QB. Then you can fill out skill positions but even the QB raises those up. Cams MVP year was with his worst WR group he ever had.

[Fox007]

4 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

Sorry, the central tenet of the articles, that CMC is injury prone, is incomplete?

The question is, is he injury prone? Or is does he just have WAY more opportunities for injury due to his over-use?  And over-used as the latest tool 

I call this the Carolina-Cam Syndrome.

In MMA what often happens is after certain 5 round grueling affairs like with Volkanovski  vs Ortega is it can take away your chin and years off your career. This has happened to numerous fighters were weren't the same after a major beat down.

They shown a graph like last year during his injury season when he was out that RBs after a certain number of touches often don't come back the same and they showed a few it was on a show so no link that I nkow of but it seems obvious anyway.

[Mage]

See, the problem with the whole "don't draft a RB in the 1st round" argument is that it tries to say every situation is the same.

Should the 2021 Lions draft a RB in the 1st round?  Hell no

But why shouldn't the 2021 Bills draft one?  Why shouldn't the 2021 Patriots draft one?

Elite RBs are a difference-maker.  Yes, they have relatively shorter playing careers as an elite player than other positions, but the league changes way too much in 5 years IMO to not draft a guy just because he won't be good 5 years from now.  If the Bills were in a position to take a McCaffrey in the draft, they absolutely should take him.

I think a better way is to say bad teams shouldn't draft RBs in the 1st round, because it'll take too long to rebuild before RB is able to contribute to a winning team (in all likelihood).  Good teams absolutely should take a RB if it is a need and will make an immediate difference.

[Catsfan69]

2 minutes ago, Fox007 said:

If the Panthers never drafted a RB in the first round in my lifetime it'd be too soon.

Its a stupid move and for analytics type poo its for sure a wrong move. The analytics say to not do that. Just bad value and you can plug RBs in from all over its just how it works now.

CMC is a skilled player there is no doubt about that but what did a 1k rush and 1k pass yard player give us?

Now just compare that with having even the 10th ranked QB in the league and see what that alone gives you given the same circumstances, same team, same everything. Have to go QB and OL to protect the QB. Then you can fill out skill positions but even the QB raises those up. Cams MVP year was with his worst WR group he ever had.

If we had had Cmac in that Superbowl with Cam we win.

Plain and simple we are tons better when he plays than when he doesn't and it's not even close.

[Fox007]

1 minute ago, Catsfan69 said:

If we had had Cmac in that Superbowl with Cam we win.

Plain and simple we are tons better when he plays than when he doesn't and it's not even close.

Yea we're better but it doesn't = wins thats one of the more basic analytics to come up and has been around for a long time now besides thats two years off. I mean fug if we had Jonathan Ogden in that SB we win it too but wtf does that matter he's not in our era.

[cookinbrak]

5 minutes ago, Fox007 said:

a stupid move and for analytics type poo its for sure a wrong move. The analytics say to not do that. Just bad value and you can plug RBs in from all over its just how it works now

So, Chubba Hubbard is a starter again?

[mrcompletely11]

11 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

Sorry, the central tenet of the articles, that CMC is injury prone, is incomplete?

The question is, is he injury prone? Or is does he just have WAY more opportunities for injury due to his over-use?  And over-used as the latest tool 

I call this the Carolina-Cam Syndrome.

Answer:  he is injury prone due to his small frame and being vastly overused in throw away seasons.   But hey at least he got paid.  

[mrcompletely11]

12 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

Injuries are often just bad luck.

 

You guys know this right?

 Not in this case