Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, sparky151 said:

 

Not sure what point you think this proves. McCaffrey is a good RB but is also very expensive. Guys like Josh Jacobs or Miles Sanders outperformed him on their rookie contracts. 

You said the RB position has been devalued in the NFL. He is just one example of more than a few offenses which rely on the production of a good RB. It matters not what they cost.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

I wouldn't call them solid at all. Adjustments were made to cover the biggest hole (bum RT) which had them flirting with average overall. Solid they were not, let alone good or championship caliber.

There's that ray of sunshine. 😆

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Le Tigre said:

You said the RB position has been devalued in the NFL. He is just one example of more than a few offenses which rely on the production of a good RB. It matters not what they cost.  

 

It matters very much what they cost. Carolina had a record of 1-5 and averaged 17.2 points per game with McCaffrey and 6-5 and 22.2 ppg after they traded him and went to a committee of cheap RBs. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sparky151 said:

 

It matters very much what they cost. Carolina had a record of 1-5 and averaged 17.2 points per game with McCaffrey and 6-5 and 22.2 ppg after they traded him and went to a committee of cheap RBs. 

You by-passed the statement you made that the RB position has been devalued in the NFL. I have made two exception examples, and the only response is money.

 

If the bottom-line/final answer is "it's OK to have a committee of cheap RB's and still have a potent rushing attack", then cool. But don't say that running the ball effectively is now devalued in the NFL. It is not.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2023 at 8:15 PM, claptonrocks said:

Your stats are wrong on McCaffery.

Get the real ones up to compare and we'll talk..

I CLEARLY said with the 49ers.  Unless you have some magical Stats that only you have access to.  You don't have an uncle named Rudi, do you??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Le Tigre said:

You by-passed the statement you made that the RB position has been devalued in the NFL. I have made two exception examples, and the only response is money.

 

If the bottom-line/final answer is "it's OK to have a committee of cheap RB's and still have a potent rushing attack", then cool. But don't say that running the ball effectively is now devalued in the NFL. It is not.   

 

Yes, the position and the players at that position have been devalued. Teams don't run the ball on 60% of the plays or even 50% anymore. Teams don't need to pay up for a RB to get good production. Do you think Zeke Elliott is earning his current salary? Or was the Cowboys best RB last year Tony Pollard? 

 

The Bengals can easily replace Mixon's production with cheaper alternatives and should spend the money elsewhere. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, kennethmw said:

I CLEARLY said with the 49ers.  Unless you have some magical Stats that only you have access to.  You don't have an uncle named Rudi, do you??

Point taken.

By providing his complete stats for the entire year as a comparison would have justified his value more..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...