Suppose CMC is part of the deal for Watson

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, AU-panther said:

I didn't say anything about Voth or if would happen.  I was disagreeing with the statement that it wasn't feasible financially.

 

Voth's exact statement is that it isn't.

[Catsfan69]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Imagine having a great quarterback and McCaffrey though.

(and yes, that's possible)

That's unstoppable and my desire. 

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Voth's exact statement is that it isn't.

It is feasible, it just isn't very reasonable. 

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, Catsfan69 said:

That's unstoppable and my desire. 

It's very stoppable if we don't improve this OL. That's an element that can effectively stop both CMC AND an elite QB. 

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, kungfoodude said:

It is feasible, it just isn't very reasonable. 

If you file it under "anything is possible" sure.

I'd give it about the same likelihood as Teddy Bridgewater taking an 80% pay cut because he understands he's not performing well.

[AU-panther]

12 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Most franchises don't want a $8-12/mil a year RB on their team. It is a bad allocation of resources unless you are stacked elsewhere, which the Texans are definitely not. It also doesn't help their very poor cap situation. 

I think there is a reason they are rumored to be wanting "young" players. I imagine what they mean is guys on rookie deals, which CMC is not. 

It doesn't make a lot of sense for us to eat that kind of dead cap hit either. I suppose if they absolutely want him in a Watson trade scenario, you can't exactly say no. I just don't see that as something that is very likely to happen. 

I agree that most franchises don't want an expensive RB but my response was to the idea that we can't afford CMC's cap hit if traded and sign someone else.  That is false, we can.

Yes they probably would prefer younger players but I was trying to point out to people that a great player on a established deal is usually a better asset in a trade than a player about to get paid.

For example if Dak and Watson were equal in ability Watson would be considered the better trade asset because part of his contract has already been paid.  If you trade for Dak you have to sign him to the entire big deal.

CMC at 8m a year isn't a horrible trade chip, I'm not saying he is Burns,  but its not like the team is having to pay him 16m a year with $30m guaranteed.  I'm not a huge big money RB guy but there are a few teams who still think that way.  

Actually for a team like Miami, if we try to trade to 3, I could see them liking CMC.  Could make an argument he would be good for Tua.  They were good last year and they have a lot of cap space.  They might be ok with the contract.

CMC seems to make more sense for a good team trying to get a little better than a rebuilding team.

 

 

 

[AU-panther]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Voth's exact statement is that it isn't.

Voth is wrong.

Most reporters have poor understanding of cap space.

 

[MechaZain]

50 minutes ago, hepcat said:

Everyone should take a look at the starting RBs for the last 20 years of Super Bowl winners and decide if a top paid RB is really that important to winning a championship 

Why in the year of our Lord 2021 are we still talking about McCaffery like he's just a RB.

A 26 year old Alvin Kamara got 5 years/$75m ($15m/yr)

A 29 year old Tyler Lockett got 3 years/$30m ($10.25M/yr)

We have both of them combined in one guy, which makes for a defensive coordinator's worst nightmare, and he's only 24 years old. 4 years/$64m ($16m/yr).

If you want to argue that due to the position's short life no RB should be getting that much money that's fair, but this idea that Hurney overpaid is ridiculous. CMC is barely the highest paid player at his position and is by far the most valuable.

Edited February 21, 2021 by MechaZain

[Mr. Scot]

5 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Voth is wrong.

Most reporters have poor understanding of cap space.

A guy who's part of the team and has access to their inside people is wrong, but you (random internet fan) who looks at cap websites are right.

Wow

When you travel somewhere, do you have to buy a separate ticket for your ego?

Edited February 21, 2021 by Mr. Scot

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, AU-panther said:

I agree that most franchises don't want an expensive RB but my response was to the idea that we can't afford CMC's cap hit if traded and sign someone else.  That is false, we can.

Yes they probably would prefer younger players but I was trying to point out to people that a great player on a established deal is usually a better asset in a trade than a player about to get paid.

For example if Dak and Watson were equal in ability Watson would be considered the better trade asset because part of his contract has already been paid.  If you trade for Dak you have to sign him to the entire big deal.

CMC at 8m a year isn't a horrible trade chip, I'm not saying he is Burns,  but its not like the team is having to pay him 16m a year with $30m guaranteed.  I'm not a huge big money RB guy but there are a few teams who still think that way.  

Actually for a team like Miami, if we try to trade to 3, I could see them liking CMC.  Could make an argument he would be good for Tua.  They were good last year and they have a lot of cap space.  They might be ok with the contract.

CMC seems to make more sense for a good team trying to get a little better than a rebuilding team.

 

 

 

At $8-12 mil/year he would still be consistently in the top 5-6 at RB in terms of pay. Even without the signing bonus hit on the cap, not many teams are going to want that much money tied up in a RB. That is precisely why very, very few teams in the NFL have that kind of money tied up in a RB. If you notice, almost none of them are good teams. 

As fans, it's easy to see CMC's greatness and why any team should want him. But if you look at it from a front office perspective, it's easy to see why it is an extremely poor allocation of resources. 

But, yes, we CAN afford to trade him. I would caution that he has never been worth less in a trade than this moment in his career. He is coming off an injury plagued season and in the first year of a very large contract. 

[kungfoodude]

5 minutes ago, MechaZain said:

Why in the year of our Lord 2021 are we still talking about McCaffery like he's just a RB.

A 26 year old Alvin Kamara got 5 years/$75m ($15m/yr)

A 29 year old Tyler Lockett got 3 years/$30m ($10.25M/yr)

We have both of them combined in one guy, which makes for a defensive coordinator's worst nightmare, and he's only 24 years old. 4 years/$64m ($16m/yr).

If you want to argue that due to the position's short life no RB should be getting that much money that's fair, but this idea that Hurney overpaid is ridiculous. CMC is barely the highest paid player at his position and is by far the most valuable.

He isn't some unicorn player. He is the same thing Ladainian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk or any of these other high caliber dual threat feature backs were. That doesn't change that he is a HOF talent, however.

The thing that you are failing to see is that RB's don't win games based on being great, especially in the modern NFL. It isn't a requirement to have an elite or HOF caliber RB to win a Super Bowl. The post you are responding to is absolutely correct. There is a reason why most of these recent Super Bowl champions don't have large sums of money tied up at RB. What you do largely see in those teams is them having elite or HOF caliber QB's in the overwhelming majority of those games. That isn't an accident.

[mrcompletely11]

Some of you guys have an extremely inflated view of cmac 

[AU-panther]

23 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I think if you went back and asked the guys actually running those defenses, they'd have a different opinion.

The reason we know this is because many of them said so.

a lot of coach speak, watch the film.

tell me schematically what they are actually doing different.

We run often on first downs so they put 8 in the box often.  If we ran a different RB a lot on early downs they would do the same.

Who is covering him on third down if he runs a wheel route?  Would it be different person covering him if it was different RB?

 

 

[panthers55]

6 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

At $8-12 mil/year he would still be consistently in the top 5-6 at RB in terms of pay. Even without the signing bonus hit on the cap, not many teams are going to want that much money tied up in a RB. That is precisely why very, very few teams in the NFL have that kind of money tied up in a RB. If you notice, almost none of them are good teams. 

As fans, it's easy to see CMC's greatness and why any team should want him. But if you look at it from a front office perspective, it's easy to see why it is an extremely poor allocation of resources. 

But, yes, we CAN afford to trade him. I would caution that he has never been worth less in a trade than this moment in his career. He is coming off an injury plagued season and in the first year of a very large contract. 

CMC isn't a running back and isn't paid as one. He is the best hybrid back who can run up the middle and play the slot better than most receivers. He is a Swiss army knife who is arguably the best player in the team. The only caveat is now saying when he is healthy.  Comparing him to just running backs isn't really apples to apples.