Curtis or Robbie?

[Icege]

1 hour ago, Fox007 said:

No, how do you come to that conclusion lol.
The question is curtis or robbie? I said it doesn't matter which one with TB as your QB it's all the same and you gonna come up with some cut both lol.

Mainly because you said it doesn't matter and got in your feelings about Bridgewater rather than answering a multiple choice question with only two choices.

If it doesn't matter since Bridgewater is starting next season, let em both walk then since it doesn't matter?

[jackson113]

1 hour ago, PhillyB said:

if CMC plays samuel is the one that loses snaps. easy choice 

What I came to say...

[Icege]

26 minutes ago, theinstrumental said:

How many threads do we need where we make this false choice? If we can sign Samuel at a reasonable price, then we keep him. Teams start three wide receivers now. We have three good ones. Keep them all. 

As many as we can on a message board where people also think you can't get a franchise QB outside of a top 5 selection when none of the seven current teams bound for the playoffs have a QB selected in the top 5.

[MechaZain]

19 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

Not really. Could be a balance of both. Maybe more Samuel leads to a healthier cmc. Not like Samuel is getting more than 3 carries a game anyway.  A good team doesn't throw away good players because of snaps and targets.

Usage definitely factors in when determining how much and whether to pay a guy. Paying Samuel what he's worth and then going back to barely seeing him on the field would be a waste of money.

I agree that ideally they'll mix him in more. I've always felt that having another good backfield option would benefit all parties. Imagine how hard it would be on defenses if Curtis and Christian were out there swapping positions on any given play. I would pick Curtis over Robby if the team was serious about that, but unless Christian's injuries caused a change of heart the coaches show no intention of changing course.

If they aren't, Anderson is the better move. He put up numbers despite his noodle arm QB who rarely went deep. It took CMC snaps for Curtis to produce.

 

 

 

[Pup McBarky]

Curtis is younger and better than Robbie. That doesn't necessarily mean you choose him. Depends on the price.

[micnificent28]

7 minutes ago, MechaZain said:

Usage definitely factors in when determining how much and whether to pay a guy. Paying Samuel what he's worth and then going back to barely seeing him on the field would be a waste of money.

I agree that ideally they'll mix him in more. I've always felt that having another good backfield option would benefit all parties. Imagine how hard it would be on defenses if Curtis and Christian were out there swapping positions on any given play. I would pick Curtis over Robby if the team was serious about that, but unless Christian's injuries caused a change of heart the coaches show no intention of changing course.

If they aren't, Anderson is the better move. He put up numbers despite his noodle arm QB who rarely went deep. It took CMC snaps for Curtis to produce.

 

 

 

If that's the case thats on the coaching staff. If Samuel was this good and we just said screw him let's sign Anderson thats on hurney. I for one have never believed in developing young talents we drafted and letting them go start for other teams. Samuel is more dynamic than Anderson. Yes Anderson is bigger, but does he really play like a big wr? 

I don't think there is anything Anderson can do that curtis can't and the opposite is true for Anderson. So in my preference even if Anderson has been good, I eat the 4 million in dead cap and let him walk. Samuel has that upside. If he was on the patriots I think he would have 1000k yards receiving this year. 

[CarolinaNCSU]

For the thread, I'd rather have Samuel I think.  But don't think that's the plan.  Reading the tea leaves from media folks, Curtis may already be out the door. If we tried to get a contract done but couldn't, and didn't trade him, thanks for the parting gift, Hurney.  

We may be looking at a decent comp pick, but if we sign someone and negate that, while losing a talented dude like Samuel...yikes. 

[MechaZain]

15 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

If that's the case thats on the coaching staff. If Samuel was this good and we just said screw him let's sign Anderson thats on hurney. I for one have never believed in developing young talents we drafted and letting them go start for other teams. Samuel is more dynamic than Anderson. Yes Anderson is bigger, but does he really play like a big wr? 

I don't think there is anything Anderson can do that curtis can't and the opposite is true for Anderson. So in my preference even if Anderson has been good, I eat the 4 million in dead cap and let him walk. Samuel has that upside. If he was on the patriots I think he would have 1000k yards receiving this year. 

I think Anderson is the better downfield receiver just barely. Samuel is the better weapon overall, but I just feel like the coaches (foolishly) see him as redundant with CMC here rather than a potential compliment. 

[AU-panther]

Trade CMC, use money saved for Samuel, draft a cheap RB?

[micnificent28]

5 minutes ago, MechaZain said:

I think Anderson is the better downfield receiver just barely. Samuel is the better weapon overall, but I just feel like the coaches (foolishly) see him as redundant with CMC here rather than a potential compliment. 

Its funny because samuel is suppose to be a down the field wr. I think he is even tho we rarely use him as such.he can be just as effective as robby I think.

[Clicheking]

Bigger question if why can't we sign a player before they enter the last year of their contract. Its much cheaper to lock them up early instead of waiting for them to ball out their last year and we can't afford them after.

[BrianS]

20 minutes ago, Clicheking said:

Bigger question if why can't we sign a player before they enter the last year of their contract. Its much cheaper to lock them up early instead of waiting for them to ball out their last year and we can't afford them after.

Because prior to this year Curtis Samuel was looking bust'ish.  He was body catching a lot, dropping a lot and in general not showing himself to be a legit NFL player.  Sure, he showed FLASHES, but never anything resembling the consistency he's shown this year.  Here, this should sum it up nicely:

Dude was a career 55% catcher and now he's catching over 80!  That's an incredible improvement.

And honestly, it's not about Curtis vs Robby.  It's Curtis vs Taylor Moton.  That's the decision this offseason.

Remember, FunFun got 10 million and he never had a season anywhere NEAR as good as what Curtis has shown this year.  I just don't see how we can afford him.  Current guess for Curtis is 4 years, 50 million somewhere as a No 2.

[Smithers]

If we had to choose, I’d go with Samuel.  He has a wider skill set.  
 

It sure would be nice to keep all three, but that doesn’t appear likely.  Maybe the best scenario is to resign Samuel, then trade Robby for an extra pick or two move up in round 1 or 2. 

[Basbear]

Anderson and im probability the #1 samuel fan, someone already asked this about moore vs samuel too. I know it causes issues, just like to keep all 3. Just get a average TE into this group with a healthy CMC, thats 5 players able to attack a defensive. 

That was maybe samuels best game, seemed he wanted it more in front of former coaches. Wished he brought that to every game, he'd be a legit playmaker like I believe.