Christian McCaffrey

[iam90sbaby 2,610]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

McCaffrey is 26 - his contract expires in his age 29 season.

He isn't far off 30 and has been in league a while now. You don't trade almost your entire draft stock for the most disposable position in football + for a guy who can't stay healthy. It's a dumb trade. 

 

[MDC 7,407]

2 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

He isn't far off 30 and has been in league a while now. You don't trade almost your entire draft stock for the most disposable position in football + for a guy who can't stay healthy. It's a dumb trade. 

 

I’d argue that you do if the player is elite when healthy, your team is set up for success right now, and the compensation isn’t too high.

The Niners didn’t forfeit any 1sts and $12m per for the next 3 years really isn’t that bad. I think that’s a gamble worth taking.

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

4 hours ago, listen2me 23 said:

I mean I get it.  As a Packers fan I admire a team willing to go for it.  But trading tons of picks for a RB of any kind in todays game? Let alone one that costs a lot of money.  Let alone one that gets hurt? He does make that offense dynamic but they still have Jimmy G.  

9er are known to have a system where any RB can be plugged in an be quality.   Just look at thr backs over the years who have done real well in that system.  

Then consider what they have spent on thr backfield over the years.  Positons we all call very replaceable.   RB hardly matters in this league.

49ers spending on their backfield

- Christian McCaffrey 2023 2nd, 3rd, 4th, plus 2024 5th rd pick

- Jerrick McKinnon 4 years $30 million

- Tevin Coleman 2 years $10 million

- Kyle Juszczyk 5 years $27 million

- '22 3rd round Tyrion Davis-Price

- '21 3rd round Trey Sermon

So they are known for having a system where any RB can be plugged in but at the same time they pump a lot of resources into the position? Maybe it’s not so much that anyone can be plugged in. Casual bystanders might think that because Mostert, Jeff Wilson, Eli Mitchell etc. but maybe that’s because they had no other choice? So yeah, the scheme is good enough to get by with inexpensive options but maybe it’s ideally designed for a star back and not to just get by. 
 

im just spit balling. 
 

3rd round picks are not much to spend at the RB position. Neither is 2 years 10 million. 
 

when is the last time they had a ‘do it all’ back?

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

5 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

He isn't far off 30 and has been in league a while now. You don't trade almost your entire draft stock for the most disposable position in football + for a guy who can't stay healthy. It's a dumb trade. 

 

He’s 26, as already noted. I’m not saying it’s a great trade, but if a team isn’t confident in its ability to draft in the mid rounds, then they probably don’t care much about the 3rd, 4th, 5th. Look how Trey Sermon (2021 3rd rounder) turned out. 
 

so they probably look at it as a 2nd for a game changer who only costs 12 mil per year

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

2 hours ago, Shooter McGavin said:

How does a scheme cause injury?

Really? 

[iam90sbaby 2,610]

4 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

He’s 26, as already noted. I’m not saying it’s a great trade, but if a team isn’t confident in its ability to draft in the mid rounds, then they probably don’t care much about the 3rd, 4th, 5th. Look how Trey Sermon (2021 3rd rounder) turned out. 
 

so they probably look at it as a 2nd for a game changer who only costs 12 mil per year

They could have got Robinson or Etienne from Jax for a lot less. Kareem Hunt was even a possibility. Yes they aren't as talented as CMC but they are solid running backs and aren't as injury prone.

[Shooter McGavin 618]

5 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

Really? 

Yes really.  How does a zone running scheme cause more injuries than a gap running scheme?

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

1 minute ago, iam90sbaby said:

They could have got Robinson or Etienne from Jax for a lot less. Kareem Hunt was even a possibility. Yes they aren't as talented as CMC but they are solid running backs and aren't as injury prone.

this seems like pure speculation plus incorrect information .

You think Robinson and Etienne were available? And Etienne who the team is very high on was available for “a lot less”? …Hunt was, sure… but CMC just recently became available with Carolina basically blowing it up. 
 

Not as injury prone? Robinson tore his Achilles in 2021 and Etienne missed his entire rookie season with a Lisfranc. 
 

And to call them all solid backs, as much as Jacksonville likes Etienne and as much as I think he is talented, he is 6 games into his NFL career. We have no clue if he is solid. 

[listen2me 23 1,873]

I guess I didnt realize they had so many mid round picks next 2 years.  Makes more sense to me now. 

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

5 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Yes really.  How does a zone running scheme cause more injuries than a gap running scheme?

It doesn’t. There are many offensive schemes and philosophies in the NFL, including schemes that prioritize one lead back without properly spelling that back. Also schemes that don’t emphasize or utilize a blocking tight end. Heavy read option schemes where a back may be taking a pitch from the QB on the run with defenders coming already at full speed. 
 

many types of offenses and schemes that can lead to a higher chance of injury for certain positions. Usually QBs and ball carriers. 

[Shooter McGavin 618]

7 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

many types of offenses and schemes that can lead to a higher chance of injury for certain positions. Usually QBs and ball carriers. 

I'd like to see the data behind that, because everything that I know says that can't predict injury in the NFL.  If there was a certain scheme that resulted in more injuries, then teams wouldn't run it.  But that doesn't exist.

[craftsman 1,045]

Carolina should take the day off and celebrate their trade victory today.

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

34 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

I'd like to see the data behind that, because everything that I know says that can't predict injury in the NFL.  If there was a certain scheme that resulted in more injuries, then teams wouldn't run it.  But that doesn't exist.

There is unlikely to be any hard evidence to support it, otherwise the NFL would likely crack down on it.... and i've only coached youth so I can't compare it but I have to imagine an offense that runs an old school workhorse back is putting that player at a higher risk for injury than an offense that splits it's reps 50/50. That's kind of common sense. Same thing with an offense designed around a running QB. You can't tell me guys like Lamar and Hurts are not at a higher risk for injury. And their offenses are designed around their unique skillset to run more options and more designed QB runs. 

 

edit: Im pretty sure there would be evidence supporting a high number of carries in one season resulting in a back wearing down, getting injured the following season. It used to be often referenced in FF back when more teams used bell cow backs. 

[Shooter McGavin 618]

17 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

There is unlikely to be any hard evidence to support it, otherwise the NFL would likely crack down on it.... and i've only coached youth so I can't compare it but I have to imagine an offense that runs an old school workhorse back is putting that player at a higher risk for injury than an offense that splits it's reps 50/50. That's kind of common sense. Same thing with an offense designed around a running QB. You can't tell me guys like Lamar and Hurts are not at a higher risk for injury. And their offenses are designed around their unique skillset to run more options and more designed QB runs. 

 

edit: Im pretty sure there would be evidence supporting a high number of carries in one season resulting in a back wearing down, getting injured the following season. It used to be often referenced in FF back when more teams used bell cow backs. 

Well now you're talking about workload, not scheme.

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

8 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Well now you're talking about workload, not scheme.

it's the same in my book. The offensive scheme is what creates the workload, no?

[Shooter McGavin 618]

1 minute ago, WhiteWonder said:

it's the same in my book. The offensive scheme is what creates the workload, no?

No, a scheme is outside zone, gap, man, spread, west coast, triple option, cover 2, etc.

The scheme and workload are independent.  You can run triple option with 5 different backs to keep their workload load, or the same rbs every play, still the same scheme.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,417]

The Shanahans have been employing their scheme in different places over the years. Denver, Washington, Houston, Atlanta, and now SF. It would be interesting to see the amount of games lost by RB’s due to injury. I know Denver had a lot, I don’t recall Atlanta or Washington having a big issue. 

[Shooter McGavin 618]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The Shanahans have been employing their scheme in different places over the years. Denver, Washington, Houston, Atlanta, and now SF. It would be interesting to see the amount of games lost by RB’s due to injury. I know Denver had a lot, I don’t recall Atlanta or Washington having a big issue. 

Many offenses run an outside zone scheme.  There is no data that RBs get injured more in this scheme than any other.

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

4 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

No, a scheme is outside zone, gap, man, spread, west coast, triple option, cover 2, etc.

The scheme and workload are independent.  You can run triple option with 5 different backs to keep their workload load, or the same rbs every play, still the same scheme.

No, I think a workload CAN be independent of scheme but is generally part of an offensive scheme. You scheme to give your top back 90% of the offensive snaps. It doesn't just happen by chance. 

 

edit to add: I am not saying this is what Shanahan does... but you asked how any offensive scheme could lead to a higher risk of injury. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

McCaffrey has been a great player on a bad team, when he plays.

I wouldn’t give up a ton for that. Did he ever make the Panthers winners? I realize that’s a lot to ask of an RB - but that’s part of the point.

We’ll see, maybe it’s a smart move that puts them over the top, but I think more likely they gave up on or two too many picks.

[Shooter McGavin 618]

2 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

No, I think a workload CAN be independent of scheme but is generally part of an offensive scheme. You scheme to give your top back 90% of the offensive snaps. It doesn't just happen by chance. 

No, the scheme is X's and O's.  You're retarded.

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

McCaffrey has been a great player on a bad team, when he plays.

I wouldn’t give up a ton for that. Did he ever make the Panthers winners? I realize that’s a lot to ask of an RB - but that’s part of the point.

We’ll see, maybe it’s a smart move that puts them over the top, but I think more likely they gave up on or two too many picks.

imho, there is no position in football outside of Quarterback that can make a team winners. The best of running backs, like the best of receivers or an amazing pass rusher is just a piece to a winning puzzle... but those pieces are still important and can certainly make a difference. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,417]

2 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Many offenses run an outside zone scheme.  There is no data that RBs get injured more in this scheme than any other.

I’m more focused on the Shanahans. They are the biggest purveyors of it and for a long time. If they show no propensity for injury considering their volume I would say it’s case closed.  It if they do then you could expand it out further. 

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

Just now, Shooter McGavin said:

No, the scheme is X's and O's.  You're retarded.

good lord. okay should I call it offensive philosophy then? or game plan? 

yes you are correct, a simple west coast offense is not going to lead to more or less injuries.... but a LOT more goes into an offensive scheme  

[IGotWorms 4,058]

1 minute ago, WhiteWonder said:

imho, there is no position in football outside of Quarterback that can make a team winners. The best of running backs, like the best of receivers or an amazing pass rusher is just a piece to a winning puzzle... but those pieces are still important and can certainly make a difference. 

Traditionally you’d give that much up for a good/great pass rusher as well. I’m not so sure now that you can’t hit the QB. But yeah, that’s part of my point - why trade a boatload of picks for a player that’s not going to make or break you?

[Shooter McGavin 618]

1 minute ago, WhiteWonder said:

yes you are correct, a simple west coast offense is not going to lead to more or less injuries.

Thank you, now please hold still while I place my ball sack on your forehead.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,417]

I would say in a zone blocking scheme that running backs are tackled more from the side and lower than straight on. Again, I’m only speculating here. 

[listen2me 23 1,873]

2 hours ago, Herbivore said:

Mostert led them with like 700 yds

Yes.  With a 5.6 average.  Extremely effective.   Maybe one of the best averages that year.  Hence, throw anyone back there and they rip off 5 yard runs all game.  

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

Traditionally you’d give that much up for a good/great pass rusher as well. I’m not so sure now that you can’t hit the QB. But yeah, that’s part of my point - why trade a boatload of picks for a player that’s not going to make or break you?

Because I think the difference lies in what is considered "make or break". Earlier you asked if CMC ever made the Panthers winners... but what else did he have around him? It would never make sense for a team like Houston for example to trade for CMC because he is not going to make them winners. The 49ers on the other hand have already shown they can be winners. They have shown they have a number of the pieces in place. We may not agree but they obviously feel that a talent like CMC in their run heavy scheme can "make" them. 

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

1 minute ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Thank you, now please hold still while I place my ball sack 

can you find it?

also you did not understand me. You're still a moron when it comes to the overall point 

[Herbivore 1,134]

4 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

Yes.  With a 5.6 average.  Extremely effective.   Maybe one of the best averages that year.  Hence, throw anyone back there and they rip off 5 yard runs all game.  

[Hardcore troubadour 15,417]

Just now, WhiteWonder said:

can you find it?

also you did not understand me. You're still a moron when it comes to the overall point 

He’s incapable of having even a football talk without raging.  The guy has issues. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

3 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

Because I think the difference lies in what is considered "make or break". Earlier you asked if CMC ever made the Panthers winners... but what else did he have around him? It would never make sense for a team like Houston for example to trade for CMC because he is not going to make them winners. The 49ers on the other hand have already shown they can be winners. They have shown they have a number of the pieces in place. We may not agree but they obviously feel that a talent like CMC in their run heavy scheme can "make" them. 

Yeah but as has been mentioned, they’ve plugged in plenty of basically street free agents and done well. If those guys can get you 90% of what McCaffrey does, is that last little bit really worth so much draft capital? Especially when considering his injury history? I think no way, but we’ll see

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

Yeah but as has been mentioned, they’ve plugged in plenty of basically street free agents and done well. If those guys can get you 90% of what McCaffrey does, is that last little bit really worth so much draft capital? I think no way, but we’ll see

That's the big question. They have used random guys and "done well". Maybe they think they can use CMC and do great. How much better he makes them? as you said, we shall see. I have no idea. I just imagine they are willing to take the chance on the proven talent over the ?? picks. They have blown 3rd round picks on RB's already. 

[Shooter McGavin 618]

4 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

can you find it?

also you did not understand me. You're still a moron when it comes to the overall point 

The overall point is that SF's scheme results in more RB injuries.  There is no evidence of this, and no logic that a scheme has any impact on injuries.

You came in and started talking about RB volume.  Now please be quiet while the men talk football.

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

1 minute ago, Shooter McGavin said:

The overall point is that SF's scheme results in more RB injuries.  There is no evidence of this, and no logic that a scheme has any impact on injuries.

You came in and started talking about RB volume.  Now please be quiet while the men talk football.

 

you talk about scheme like your only football knowledge comes from 1990's Madden games. 

[Shooter McGavin 618]

6 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

 

you talk about scheme like your only football knowledge comes from 1990's Madden games. 

Good one, coach.  Is your scheme "Give 32 the ball on every play!"?  How's the team doing with that scheme?

[joneo 556]

14 hours ago, JustinCharge said:

you need a franchise QB to expect a super bowl win, not an injury prone RB.  Seems like a bad trade but maybe they'll get lucky.

Joe Flacco, Nick Foles, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien, Doug WWilliams, Jeff Hostetler all might disagree with you.  

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

36 minutes ago, joneo said:

Joe Flacco, Nick Foles, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien, Doug WWilliams, Jeff Hostetler all might disagree with you.  

I’m curious what the list is of franchise QBs that never won a SB. Dan Marino is at the top. 

[MDC 7,407]

5 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I’m curious what the list is of franchise QBs that never won a SB. Dan Marino is at the top. 

Add Warren Moon and Jim Kelly.