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!

     

Revisiting the CMC Trade

WarHeel

By WarHeel,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

WarHeel Mentor

WarHeel

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

I personally didn't say anything about them losing the championship because of their QB play.  They lost the championship because they went up against the Eagles, who have been by far the best team in the league all season.  They were outclassed at every nearly every position on the field.

Eagles could have certainly been the better team overall but having your QB1 and QB2 go down in the moment doesn’t leave much for fair competition at that point. But that still doesn’t mean that CMC isn’t a game changer simply because he couldn't “win the game” for them in that moment. 

Edited by WarHeel
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DeAngelo Beason Experienced

DeAngelo Beason

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, WarHeel said:

Eagles could have certainly been the better team overall but having your QB1 and QB2 go down in the moment doesn’t leave much for fair competition at that point. But that still doesn’t mean that CMC isn’t a game changer simply because he could “win the game” for them in that moment. 

Even with both QBs healthy, they would have gotten smoked.  CMC is a great player, but as we saw in his time in Carolina, CMC having epic, earth-shattering performances still equated to loss after loss after loss.  The point remains the same.  RBs have very limited value no matter how good they are.  The 49ers as a team were very well positioned to make a playoff run, and they played a pretty darn easy schedule for the latter part of the season.

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

WarHeel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

Even with both QBs healthy, they would have gotten smoked.  CMC is a great player, but as we saw in his time in Carolina, CMC having epic, earth-shattering performances still equated to loss after loss after loss.  The point remains the same.  RBs have very limited value no matter how good they are.  The 49ers as a team were very well positioned to make a playoff run, and they played a pretty darn easy schedule for the latter part of the season.

Disagree. Would have likely been a very close game with a health Mr Irrelevant. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

I get that, but having your starting and backup QB get knocked out of a championship level game doesn’t necessarily equate to a player like CMC being invaluable because he can’t win the game for them in that moment. That’s a bit of a stretch. 

he isn't invaluable.  But a stud RB is still a complimentary piece.  

That's why at the end it is always a battle of the elite QBs

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WarHeel Mentor

WarHeel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, CRA said:

he isn't invaluable.  But a stud RB is still a complimentary piece.  

That's why at the end it is always a battle of the elite QBs

 

Correct. And for clarification, my argument is you need multiple pieces.  Not just a stellar RB who can do it all. Not just a better than average QB. Both can make you competitive but in isolation they are not going to win you championships. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MasterAwesome Veteran

MasterAwesome

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, CRA said:

he isn't invaluable.  But a stud RB is still a complimentary piece.  

That's why at the end it is always a battle of the elite QBs

 

I think it's interesting and worth noting that the biggest blowout of the weekend featured a QB who threw for barely 100 yards and 0 TDs.  Seems like the most dominant teams are ones where a stud QB is also a complementary piece, rather than the focal point whose singular performance almost entirely dictates whether their team wins or loses.  That's the difference between a team like the Eagles vs. a team like the Bengals.  If Hurts has a meh or even bad game, their smothering defense and strong run game can still fairly easily carry the load.  If Burrow has a bad game, it's more likely that his team is struggling to pull off the win.

Edited by MasterAwesome
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I think it's interesting and worth noting that the biggest blowout of the weekend featured a QB who threw for barely 100 yards and 0 TDs.  Seems like the most dominant teams are ones where a stud QB is also a complementary piece, rather than the focal point whose singular performance almost entirely dictates whether their team wins or loses.  That's the difference between a team like the Eagles vs. a team like the Bengals.  If Hurts has a meh or even bad game, their smothering defense and strong run game can still fairly easily carry the load.  If Burrow has a bad game, it's more likely that his team is struggling to pull off the win.

Eagles went 0-2 when he was out with an injury this year.   Including a beating at home to the lowly Saints. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MasterAwesome Veteran

MasterAwesome

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, CRA said:

Eagles went 0-2 when he was out with an injury this year.   Including a beating at home to the lowly Saints. 

You're talking about games where Hurts didn't even play - I'm talking about games where he has a poor or meh performance, there's a subtle distinction there.  Because whether he's having a good game or a bad game as a passer, he still needs to be accounted for in the run game.  Which is partly what I mean by him being a complementary piece of the team; he also complements the run game with that threat of running. Even if himself has a lackluster rushing performance, the role he plays helps indirectly elevate the rest of the team around him.

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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • csx
      How long do you feel it takes for a head coach to turn a team around?

      By csx · Posted

      Canales has his msjor issue not doing the obvious regarding running Dowdle but with an average QB we would be in the playoffs with an average QB. 
    • kungfoodude
      How long do you feel it takes for a head coach to turn a team around?

      By kungfoodude · Posted

      1. fug TikTak, I ain't clicking that stupid poo. 2. This is really very situationally dependent. Coaching is a huge part but sometimes you step into a scenario where a lot of building needs to happen that is largely out of your control  Recent examples(Last season's hiring cycle): 1. Ben Johnson Johnson chose the OVERWHELMINGLY best open coaching job due to a combination of solid ownership, a solid front office and the most talented roster of the open jobs from that cycle. Negatives were, insanely stacked division. Results have so far indicated that this coaching change has been a massive boost. 2. Mike Vrabel Vrabel went a different direction. He went to a franchise that has solid ownership, a mediocre front office and one of the worst roster in the NFL. However, he has a track record of NFL head coaching success AND lucked into one of the easiest schedules in NFL history(I believe 3rd easiest). Even with that caveat, a clear indicator that coaching has been a huge boost. 3. Pete Carroll Carroll chose one of the NFL's most voliate franchises. Notoriously bad ownership, very bad front office and a terrible roster. But, Carroll is a HOF caliber NFL HC with success at every stop. At the moment, coaching has not been able to overcome the apparent obstacles. In fact, it's been a complete diaster to the extent that Carroll has already fired multiple coaches. One could certainly argue that pethaps Pete has lost his touch but regardless, this coaching change didn't result in a turnaround and Carroll's future there seems in doubt. 4. Aaron Glenn Glenn's first HC opportunity was a doozy. Near worst ownership, a mediocre front office(at best) and a talented core group of players on an underwhelming roster. This experiment has been quite the ride to date. Glenn's personnel decisions have seemingly led to multiple close game losses(2-5 in games decided by one score or less) and the FO decided to have a roster firesale prior to the trade deadline for a wealth of draft capital. The question will be if Glenn will be given the time to actually see this future draft capital realized, now that a significant chunk of the talented core is not longer there. Coaching has not made a difference but is the franchise now setting him up to fail further? 5. Liam Coen Coen picked a mixed bag. Terrible ownership, a remade front office he essentially had a hand in selecting(or at the miminum influenced) and a middling roster. The early results show promise even if the roster shows significant flaws(and Coen shows visible frustration with his "franchise" QB every Sunday). Could be close to turning a 4 win team into a playoff berth. Coaching has mattered. 6. Brian Schottenheimer This was resoundingly viewed as a bad hire but it's also under challenging circumstances. Bad ownership in the sense that the ownership is also the front office, a future Tepper dream I assume. Very talented but very flawed roster. The initial results have been...interesting. A Cowboys team that was a bad 7-10 after a previous streak of three 12 win seasons is now....mediocre? Couple that with wild roster changes prior to the start of the season and up to the trade deadline and it makes for an incomplete picture. It's not much progress but it doesn’t appear to be regressing either. TBD. 6. Kellen Moore Moore chose the most challenging of all openings. The Saints are in the midst of a simulateous roster teardown and attempted rebuild. Decent ownership, a mixed bag in the front office(great at evaluating draft talent, less so in free agency and in salary cap management). The Saints have been awful but, they were expected to be awful. To that note, they were net sellers before the trade deadline. It was reported that Moore secured an agreement that this is long term building effort prior to taking the position so his status seems safe even while the team flounders week to week. Difficult to grade this now as the entire scenario seems to be a long term strategy. TBD.
    • Tr3ach
      How long do you feel it takes for a head coach to turn a team around?

      By Tr3ach · Posted

      I think he has started to build a culture here.  I think if we had a qb with no limitations we would be seeing a lot more with the offense.  I think most of the coaches that come in and instantly win went to teams that were underachieving previously based on roster talent level.  Based on our roster talent,  we werent underachieving,  we were just bad.
×
×
  • Create New...