A healthy Cam or CMC who do you resign?

[MVPccaffrey]

Unless Cam gives a real sweatheart deal, like <20 million with not much in the way of committed dollars, you obviously move on, and that's what I expect to happen.

[kungfoodude]

37 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

I actually dont mind paying CMC 17M a year. I think his value as a WR justifies that. 

Eh....IDK about that. I love the kid to death but having that much tied up in a RB is not a recipe for ultimate success in recent league history. You'd have to go all the way back to 2013 to find a Super Bowl winning team that had a running back among the top ten paid at his position. 

[Mr. Scot]

2 hours ago, Khyber53 said:

Both can be and will be retained. New CBA will expand the possibilities greatly with more money flowing to the players overall. 

I think that's... optimistic.

[CBDellinger]

The answer is both.  It's not an either or scenario.  The cap is increasing every year and the contracts can be structured to easily fit both these guys under the cap. Other teams have done it, no reason why we cant.

[Khyber53]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I think that's... optimistic.

I'm generally optimistic. It pays off most of the time. 

I'm optimistic that the new CBA will feature more revenue for each team to work with. 

I'm optimistic that Cam will still be able to qualify for a new contract and a top 5 yearly salary.

I'm optimistic that CMC will still be able to play at this or a higher level by the time he needs a new contract. If so I expect him to get a top 5 RB paycheck as well.

Otherwise it's just two years of worry about things I can't control and have little to no bearing on the season before us. Much better to just put it in the file that says "It'll work out however it is supposed to."

 

[mc52beast]

When you’re talking “healthy” Cam you have to question how long he’s going to be able to run. Running is what makes him so dangerous, take that away and what do you have? Will he evolve into a pocket passer worth 30+ million?

Really tough question. We also have Shaq and Bradberry and Addison coming up on contract years. 
 

If I have to pick one I take CMC. 

[KaseKlosed]

You choose Cam. A franchise QB is more valuable than a top RB any day. RBs can be replaced just ask the Pats. 

[Rubi]

Kyle Allen has answered this question. Team is way better with Cam off the field

 

cant believe I’m typing this. 

[CanadianCat]

On 10/1/2019 at 8:24 AM, kungfoodude said:

Eh....IDK about that. I love the kid to death but having that much tied up in a RB is not a recipe for ultimate success in recent league history. You'd have to go all the way back to 2013 to find a Super Bowl winning team that had a running back among the top ten paid at his position. 

I think you need to go back further to find a Super Bowl winning team with a QB paid in the top 10 as well.. 

[CPcavedweller]

Clearly CMC. You don't let the best back in the NFL walk. The best thing for a young QB is a good running game. Use the savings from not signing Cam to invest in the offensive line, start a young QB, go from there.

Over investment in QB's is what is killing a lot of teams right now. Also part of the reason the Patriots remain good year after year. Brady's pay is far below the market rate for his production. 

[kungfoodude]

1 hour ago, CanadianCat said:

I think you need to go back further to find a Super Bowl winning team with a QB paid in the top 10 as well.. 

Incorrect. 2015.

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Incorrect. 2015.

To be fair, Manning was at the end of his career at that point.

[kungfoodude]

53 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

To be fair, Manning was at the end of his career at that point.

Still top ten paid. Counts for the purposes of what we are trying to establish. 

To actually do this better, you could take all the RB and QB's to try and establish the stronger correlation to success(records, titles). It would be kind of time consuming.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

Still top ten paid. Counts for the purposes of what we are trying to establish. 

To actually do this better, you could take all the RB and QB's to try and establish the stronger correlation to success(records, titles). It would be kind of time consuming.

And still wouldn't get to the heart of the decision.

Logic like "a quarterback is always more valuable than a running back" leads you to keep Eli Manning over Saquon Barkley.

You still ultimately have to make the decision on individual factors.