Draft Analysis RB Christian McCaffrey - Patience, Vision, And Versatility; Traits of a Successful RB In Today's NFL

[Saca312]

10 minutes ago, Cracka McNasty said:

Yeah but he'd be a first round RB, which I'm not a fan of personally.

Fair enough. I think the knock with first round RBs happens to be whether they'd bust since they may be so scheme dependent. That's why you see guys like Fournette - projected as superstars - with higher bust ratios if they don't go on a team that schemes around them.

McCaffrey could fit right in with any scheme and succeed. He has so many uses, and plays at a high level in every facet. He's not an average player that can do a lot - he's a pro-bowl caliber player playing everything he does at such a level. The fact he can return, be a slot guy, and a top tier RB makes him worth a high pick honestly.

He'd be one of the top WRs too if he entered the draft just at that position. A lot of uses for the kid to succeed. That's why I'd argue he's our best fit for a first round RB to evolve this offense, and get a guy like Perine in the 4th round or 3rd comp. Heck, even James Conner shows he's a solid power back we can get late, though he's likely going to be a fullback option if so.

[LinvilleGorge]

Everyone loves to talk about how you can get a good RB later in the draft, but those late round gems are just that - diamonds in the rough. Everyone still loves to draft CBs high even though Richard Sherman and Josh Norman were taken in the 5th round.

[gmonjimbo]

I am fine with Fournette, Howard, and McCaffery. I am all in on offense. The only defensive players I would consider at 8 is Adams, Thomas, and maybe Lattimore (Won't include Garrett because it's not a realistic possibility). With McCaffery and Stewart I hope they will combine for 25-30 touches a game, whether that is running or catching the ball. No.1 priority is taking the burden off of No.1. 

[Shocker]

12 hours ago, Kevin Greene said:

LOL, another McCaffrey thread.

Keep em coming Lets go!

[thefuzz]

I think that he's the only offensive player that could come in make a huge impact immediately.

[csx]

30 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Everyone loves to talk about how you can get a good RB later in the draft, but those late round gems are just that - diamonds in the rough. Everyone still loves to draft CBs high even though Richard Sherman and Josh Norman were taken in the 5th round.

I'm not trying to argue this is some kind of meaningful trend or anything but I was just thinking. When was the last time a Super Bowl was won by a team with a running back they selected in the first round?

[csx]

Looks like it was Reggie Bush in 2009.

[LinvilleGorge]

The Seahawks weren't the team that drafted him, but Lynch was the #12 overall pick.

[Ricky Spanish]

1 hour ago, Saca312 said:

Fair enough. I think the knock with first round RBs happens to be whether they'd bust since they may be so scheme dependent. That's why you see guys like Fournette - projected as superstars - with higher bust ratios if they don't go on a team that schemes around them.

McCaffrey could fit right in with any scheme and succeed. He has so many uses, and plays at a high level in every facet. He's not an average player that can do a lot - he's a pro-bowl caliber player playing everything he does at such a level. The fact he can return, be a slot guy, and a top tier RB makes him worth a high pick honestly.

He'd be one of the top WRs too if he entered the draft just at that position. A lot of uses for the kid to succeed. That's why I'd argue he's our best fit for a first round RB to evolve this offense, and get a guy like Perine in the 4th round or 3rd comp. Heck, even James Conner shows he's a solid power back we can get late, though he's likely going to be a fullback option if so.

My biggest gripe against RBs in the first is their short career length, even if they're good.

Statistically speaking, a RB will have his best years until he is 28, then he starts to regress, then he falls off a cliff at 30. Plenty of other positions play well into their early to mid thirties if they are good enough, RB is not one of them. You have at max, 7 years of good production, and that's not even taking into account the number of games he'll miss over that time span due to injury because RB is one of the most oft injured positions in the game due to the nature of the position. 

The game (and contracts) have evolved past needing a bell cow type back to be a productive offense. You can do plenty of damage with second and third tier RB as your starter with a solid rotational depth behind him. 

Having said all that, I do like the idea of what McCaffery brings to the table with his skill set. He's Reggie Bush at worst, and michael westbrook at best for me. I'd love either. Especially with Stewart taking the brunt of the carriers, and then in a year or two we draft a sturdier option at RB to take his place and get a nice 1-2 punch going like we had with Williams and Stewart all those years ago.

And then we pay them combined less than we paid either one of those two individually.

[Saca312]

21 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

The Seahawks weren't the team that drafted him, but Lynch was the #12 overall pick.

Very good point. There still have been successful runningbacks drafted high. Just depends on one's preference.

[Ace_Aladdin]

23 hours ago, Saca312 said:

 

Contact , contact, contact

[Marguide]

22 hours ago, thebigcat said:

Call me racist but I'm not comfortable with a white udersized rb in the first round.


Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Well then you are.

If you are disqualifying him because he's white, you are, period.

[ClawOn]

Another thread. Great. Dave: "still nope."

[Toomers]

On 4/10/2017 at 0:40 PM, Cracka McNasty said:

My biggest gripe against RBs in the first is their short career length, even if they're good.

Statistically speaking, a RB will have his best years until he is 28, then he starts to regress, then he falls off a cliff at 30. Plenty of other positions play well into their early to mid thirties if they are good enough, RB is not one of them. You have at max, 7 years of good production, and that's not even taking into account the number of games he'll miss over that time span due to injury because RB is one of the most oft injured positions in the game due to the nature of the position. 

The game (and contracts) have evolved past needing a bell cow type back to be a productive offense. You can do plenty of damage with second and third tier RB as your starter with a solid rotational depth behind him. 

Having said all that, I do like the idea of what McCaffery brings to the table with his skill set. He's Reggie Bush at worst, and michael westbrook at best for me. I'd love either. Especially with Stewart taking the brunt of the carriers, and then in a year or two we draft a sturdier option at RB to take his place and get a nice 1-2 punch going like we had with Williams and Stewart all those years ago.

And then we pay them combined less than we paid either one of those two individually.

   Everything you stated is completely valid. What I post that follows is more of a slight counter-point than a disagreement. 

  With today's contract structure, after 5-6 years, any good/great player is going to be paid at a level that makes them a much larger risk at the salary they will command. If you pay someone like KK anything close to what he wants(and deserves) he becomes a huge potential liability just because of risk of injury. Just something to consider. We have 4 players coming up next off-season that will command huge contracts for their positions. Even Star, who is a tough call because of deciding what you pay him as. A run-stuffing NT-type(which he is) or God forbid, actual Good DT money. With health issues, size, and those aforementioned points, what do you even think of paying him? Even Luke, who is an absolute steal at his contract, has health concerns. Just an example people, don't freak out. I think he will be fine. 

  I guess the point I'm making is, outside of QB, you really can't look past any players first contract because of all the risk involved with those big/monster contracts that the ones that work out will command. But, as I said, all your points still have merit.