Revisiting the CMC Trade

[WarHeel]

28 minutes ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

I personally didn't say anything about them losing the championship because of their QB play.  They lost the championship because they went up against the Eagles, who have been by far the best team in the league all season.  They were outclassed at every nearly every position on the field.

Eagles could have certainly been the better team overall but having your QB1 and QB2 go down in the moment doesn’t leave much for fair competition at that point. But that still doesn’t mean that CMC isn’t a game changer simply because he couldn't “win the game” for them in that moment. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by WarHeel

[DeAngelo Beason]

1 minute ago, WarHeel said:

Eagles could have certainly been the better team overall but having your QB1 and QB2 go down in the moment doesn’t leave much for fair competition at that point. But that still doesn’t mean that CMC isn’t a game changer simply because he could “win the game” for them in that moment. 

Even with both QBs healthy, they would have gotten smoked.  CMC is a great player, but as we saw in his time in Carolina, CMC having epic, earth-shattering performances still equated to loss after loss after loss.  The point remains the same.  RBs have very limited value no matter how good they are.  The 49ers as a team were very well positioned to make a playoff run, and they played a pretty darn easy schedule for the latter part of the season.

[WarHeel]

5 minutes ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

Even with both QBs healthy, they would have gotten smoked.  CMC is a great player, but as we saw in his time in Carolina, CMC having epic, earth-shattering performances still equated to loss after loss after loss.  The point remains the same.  RBs have very limited value no matter how good they are.  The 49ers as a team were very well positioned to make a playoff run, and they played a pretty darn easy schedule for the latter part of the season.

Disagree. Would have likely been a very close game with a health Mr Irrelevant. 

[CRA]

12 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

I get that, but having your starting and backup QB get knocked out of a championship level game doesn’t necessarily equate to a player like CMC being invaluable because he can’t win the game for them in that moment. That’s a bit of a stretch. 

he isn't invaluable.  But a stud RB is still a complimentary piece.  

That's why at the end it is always a battle of the elite QBs

 

[WarHeel]

2 minutes ago, CRA said:

he isn't invaluable.  But a stud RB is still a complimentary piece.  

That's why at the end it is always a battle of the elite QBs

 

Correct. And for clarification, my argument is you need multiple pieces.  Not just a stellar RB who can do it all. Not just a better than average QB. Both can make you competitive but in isolation they are not going to win you championships. 

[MasterAwesome]

2 hours ago, CRA said:

he isn't invaluable.  But a stud RB is still a complimentary piece.  

That's why at the end it is always a battle of the elite QBs

 

I think it's interesting and worth noting that the biggest blowout of the weekend featured a QB who threw for barely 100 yards and 0 TDs.  Seems like the most dominant teams are ones where a stud QB is also a complementary piece, rather than the focal point whose singular performance almost entirely dictates whether their team wins or loses.  That's the difference between a team like the Eagles vs. a team like the Bengals.  If Hurts has a meh or even bad game, their smothering defense and strong run game can still fairly easily carry the load.  If Burrow has a bad game, it's more likely that his team is struggling to pull off the win.

Edited January 31, 2023 by MasterAwesome

[CRA]

25 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I think it's interesting and worth noting that the biggest blowout of the weekend featured a QB who threw for barely 100 yards and 0 TDs.  Seems like the most dominant teams are ones where a stud QB is also a complementary piece, rather than the focal point whose singular performance almost entirely dictates whether their team wins or loses.  That's the difference between a team like the Eagles vs. a team like the Bengals.  If Hurts has a meh or even bad game, their smothering defense and strong run game can still fairly easily carry the load.  If Burrow has a bad game, it's more likely that his team is struggling to pull off the win.

Eagles went 0-2 when he was out with an injury this year.   Including a beating at home to the lowly Saints. 

[MasterAwesome]

2 hours ago, CRA said:

Eagles went 0-2 when he was out with an injury this year.   Including a beating at home to the lowly Saints. 

You're talking about games where Hurts didn't even play - I'm talking about games where he has a poor or meh performance, there's a subtle distinction there.  Because whether he's having a good game or a bad game as a passer, he still needs to be accounted for in the run game.  Which is partly what I mean by him being a complementary piece of the team; he also complements the run game with that threat of running. Even if himself has a lackluster rushing performance, the role he plays helps indirectly elevate the rest of the team around him.

[stratocatter]

If you have your D, you have your OL, your QB, then a RB of the highest echelon would be a great target that high in the draft. 

I would almost argue a TE that is elite would be better than RB but I'l concede that. If RB means that much to you, go for it. 

Otherwise, tend to the rest first. 

 

[SOJA]

we need the draft picks to replete talent on our team and it's time you guys started realizing smart teams garner draft picks