A healthy Cam or CMC who do you resign?

[TheMaulClaw]

16 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

Todd Gurely  was a "Generational talent" Cam was a Generational talent, their  have been a few of those and time breaks them down just like the rest.. he isn't immune to the same pitfalls as everyone else. As far broken down you don't really know that yet. Has he been hobbled by the same injury that hobbled luck the same amount of time yes. 

The foot injury could be some freak random accident. U can't  beef up a foot just like Olsen. I don't think that makes him injury prone or broken down. Its wait and see.

I think that CMAC is the choice just because he'll only be 25 when his contract his due.  I think we can also take a look at genetics when it comes to this.  Ed McCaffery stayed healthy in the league for a long time.  I don't really get the risk of signing CMC to a 4 year deal when he's only 25.  I also think that while its true a lot of RBs to break down when they hit 30.....we've still got a ways to go before we get to that point.  We could resign him to a 4 year deal....lock him down for the next 6 years and at the end of that he'd only be 29.

If you think that CMC is going to be damage goods at 29....how in the heck could you possibly want to resign Newton?

[Mr. Scot]

50 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

Cam and this is not even close. 

QB > RB = 100% of the time. 

Using that logic, you'd keep Eli Manning over Saquon Barkley.

Younger > Older

Cheaper> More Expensive

Healthy> Injured

The premise of the argument is a healthy Newton, but in the real world we can't guarantee we're going to see that again. And even if he's healthy now (like he supposedly was at the start of the season) will he stay that way?

The argument is nowhere near as simple as "QB > RB".

[DeAngelo Beason]

CMC.  If you'd asked me five years ago this question may be difficult to answer.

[Moo Daeng]

I'm not fond of resigning Newton at this point. Trying to recapture past glory will likely end in disappointment for all.

[JawnyBlaze]

Both. Healthy Cam is more beneficial to the team than McCaffrey. Also, second contracts for super stud RBs are often I’ll advised. But we’ll make it work for both if the situation presents itself n

[BrianS]

2 hours ago, TheRumGone said:

I understand pause for concern over cmc’s workload BUT as he gets older and slows down he’s still gonna have value as a slot receiver. That’s why I’m not too concerned giving him a second contract. 

This is a GREAT point.  Even if his value as a back falls off, his value as a slot receiver will probably remain and allow him to extend his career when most RB's would have to call it a day.

[CanadianCat]

6 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

The premise of the argument is a healthy Newton

I agree with your fuller point but based on the OP then yes I would take healthy Cam vs CMC.

This is simply a hypothetical debate at this point. 

The best situation for ANY team at this point in the NFL is a quality QB on a rookie deal then load up around them. Allen fits that at this point simply because he is cheap, I would say the same about Grier though. 

Im concerned that CMC is going to cost 17+ a year when he resigns. So then the question is if he worth that much if you are also re upping Newton. I dont think we can do both.. 

[rico6]

In today’s NFL how often are RBs re-signed to the same team after rookie deals anyways? Ignorance aside in recent memory I count Gurley and Zeke.

[Mr. Scot]

42 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

I agree with your fuller point but based on the OP then yes I would take healthy Cam vs CMC.

This is simply a hypothetical debate at this point. 

The best situation for ANY team at this point in the NFL is a quality QB on a rookie deal then load up around them. Allen fits that at this point simply because he is cheap, I would say the same about Grier though. 

Im concerned that CMC is going to cost 17+ a year when he resigns. So then the question is if he worth that much if you are also re upping Newton. I dont think we can do both.. 

A veteran quarterback is going to cost way more than 17 plus a year, probably more than twice that much.

And again, getting healthy and staying healthy are two different things, especially for players over 30.

[ForJimmy]

Age and injury history makes me lean towards CMC. Cam can be the best player in the NFL, but  CMC will be more consistent.

[LinvilleGorge]

18 hours ago, TheMaulClaw said:

I respect your opinion

..but this thread is a no bash zone.

What has this guy posted anytime recently to have anyone respect his opinion? 

[Jon Snow]

The choice to me boils down to this.  Do I pay the best offensive player and quite possibly the best on the team at age 24 or the former best player on the team who has been injured and at age 30 for twice the price?  I chose the first option.

Keep drafting the next best player on the team and spend the savings on the trenches.

That's what I would do given the limited information in the op premise.

[raz]

we're gonna be looking at 5 yr/190 million to sign cam when he comes up.  that's $38 mil/yr.   probably $120 million guaranteed.     people thinking its gonna be cheaper is kinda nuts.   

[Basbear]

9 hours ago, jb2288 said:

This isn’t a fair take at all. CMC hasn’t shown anything to have to jump to the conclusion he’d be on IR. Sure as he gets older he’ll miss a game here or there but come on man he’s been a freak so far with production and health 

 

19 hours ago, TheMaulClaw said:

I'd absolutely be ok paying a 25 year old CMC 15 mill per for 4 years. Hes only 23.

Given the amount of snaps played, the odds are stacked against him. Its very hard since hes so beloved. 

I'll try a different example, say an 2017 Porsche 911 Carrera comes on the market. Seller wants 30x the bluebook WITH 275,000 miles on the odometer. Is it a wise-move to buy that car? Paint still looks fresh and it could run another 100k, but is that smart?