Melvin Gordon ends hold out; to report Thursday

[Nabbs4u]

Going to be fun watching whether or not the Kamara's,  Mccaffrey's,  Saquon's of the NFL moving forward "benefit" from what Bell, Zeke and Gordon are doing when their turn is up? Or follow suit with their own holdouts Pre / Post (Potential changes) to the New CBA?

People can argue the merits of the RB position but these 3 players specifically are trying the reset the the Payscale Market for not only themselves but all RB's that follow.  Just like every other position group that is getting a bump in pay on a yearly and contractual basis!

Unfortunately those who start the trend, don't always reap the benefits. Even if it is what needs to be done!!

Edited August 22, 2019 by Nabbs4u

[Steelersfan43]

1 hour ago, Nabbs4u said:

Going to be fun watching whether or not the Kamara's,  Mccaffrey's,  Saquon's of the NFL moving forward "benefit" from what Bell, Zeke and Gordon are doing when their turn is up? Or follow suit with their own holdouts Pre / Post (Potential changes) to the New CBA?

People can argue the merits of the RB position but these 3 players specifically are trying the reset the the Payscale Market for not only themselves but all RB's that follow.  Just like every other position group that is getting a bump in pay on a yearly and contractual basis!

Unfortunately those who start the trend, don't always reap the benefits. Even if it is what needs to be done!!

Le'Veon Bell reset the RB market but in the wrong direction(for the player).

Stephen Jones: RB market re-set with Le’Veon Bell deal

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/08/06/stephen-jones-rb-market-re-set-with-leveon-bell-deal/

 

His RB need to live with the current market.They can not have more than what others offer to you

 

 

 

[Steelersfan43]

If his RB are not happy on the current market at their position, they just have to find another job.

[sammymvpknight]

I can see Kamara, Barkley, and Barkley making a ton of money because their receiving ability is so valuable. I think that Elliott and Gordon are making a mistake. They’re replacements won’t be as good but their roles can be filled by much cheaper options. 

[sammymvpknight]

On 8/2/2019 at 12:49 AM, Yin-Yang said:

I actually think Kamara is in a prime position to have an elongated career. His touches get limited (which is one of the reasons he’s below other elite RBs, for me) and that should keep him healthier, if not extend his shelf life. Also, not being a first rounder with a fifth year option helps.

I agree on Gordon, though. Not worth a mega-deal.

Even when Kamara’s running ability declines...he’s going to be a top 3 receiving back as long as he plays. He can easily be a Darren Sproles type RB into his 30’s. That’s in my opinion why he is so valuable. 

[TheVillain112]

2 minutes ago, sammymvpknight said:

Even when Kamara’s running ability declines...he’s going to be a top 3 receiving back as long as he plays. He can easily be a Darren Sproles type RB into his 30’s. That’s in my opinion why he is so valuable. 

Kamara is truly a unicorn.

(Although Saquon Barkley is a damn centaur...)

[iknowcool]

14 minutes ago, TheVillain112 said:

Kamara is truly a unicorn.

(Although Saquon Barkley is a damn centaur...)

I'm confused by that article's logic.  How is the only way to get good receiving production out of a RB by lining them out wide?  That seems like arbitrary criteria, especially considering it leads them to the conclusion that Christian McCaffrey doesn't matter in the passing game... which is absolutely ridiculous.

And while yes, they are less efficient than a wide receiver, they are ignoring their roles are completely different.  A WR is not going to be open every play, so the idea that teams should just target WRs and TEs more isn't practical - unless they are suggesting teams A) take RBs off the field completely, which in turn makes it easier for defenses to determine if you are going to pass and B) keep a RB on the field solely as a decoy, which seems very limiting to the offense.  It's useful to have a RB who can consistently get open underneath and in the intermediate.  It is akin to saying, "Steph Curry is less efficient than DeAndre Jordan", ignoring that their roles are different.  

Christian McCaffrey (along with Norv Turner) was a BIG reason why Newton, prior to his injury last season, was so damn good.  However, if we were going by their logic, the Panthers would have been better off targeting Devin Funchess more than Christian McCaffrey.  It assumes every team has multiple WRs and TEs who can consistently get open throughout the game.  

[sammymvpknight]

1 minute ago, iknowcool said:

I'm confused by that article's logic.  How is the only way to get good receiving production out of a RB by lining them out wide?  That seems like arbitrary criteria, especially considering it leads them to the conclusion that Christian McCaffrey doesn't matter in the passing game... which is absolutely ridiculous.

And while yes, they are less efficient than a wide receiver, they are ignoring their roles are completely different.  A WR is not going to be open every play, so the idea that teams should just target WRs and TEs more isn't practical - unless they are suggesting teams A) take RBs off the field completely, which in turn makes it easier for defenses to determine if you are going to pass and B) keep a RB on the field solely as a decoy, which seems very limiting to the offense.  It's useful to have a RB who can consistently get open underneath and in the intermediate.  It is akin to saying, "Steph Curry is less efficient than DeAndre Jordan", ignoring that their roles are different.  

Christian McCaffrey (along with Norv Turner) was a BIG reason why Newton, prior to his injury last season, was so damn good.  However, if we were going by their logic, the Panthers would have been better off targeting Devin Funchess more than Christian McCaffrey.  It assumes every team has multiple WRs and TEs who can consistently get open throughout the game.  

Receiving production wasn’t the point of the article...it was to determine the ways that the running backs got production and how efficient they were with their opportunities. McCaffrey got excellent production catching dump off passes. Kamara got excellent production running an NFL receiver route tree. Yes, both are valuable, but one is significantly more difficult than the other and provides unpredictability and diversity to an offense. 

[iknowcool]

15 minutes ago, sammymvpknight said:

Receiving production wasn’t the point of the article...it was to determine the ways that the running backs got production and how efficient they were with their opportunities. McCaffrey got excellent production catching dump off passes. Kamara got excellent production running an NFL receiver route tree. Yes, both are valuable, but one is significantly more difficult than the other and provides unpredictability and diversity to an offense. 

It says, "There's only one clear RB1 who matters in the passing game"

In the article, they say, "The point is, the only running backs that truly MATTER in the passing game are those who can consistently line up outside and make plays."

It is asserting Christian McCaffrey does not matter in the passing game.  It is a ridiculous statement.  Regardless if you think Kamara had a higher level of difficulty than McCaffrey is irrelevant, I'm not arguing that because I would probably agree Kamara is better.  I'm arguing the idea that someone like McCaffrey, or even Gurley, is irrelevant to the passing game.  

Also, how many targets did Kamara get out wide?  All they say is RBs with more than 20 targets.  So if Kamara only got 40 targets there the entire season, does it REALLY add that much more unpredictability and diversity to an offense?  That would be 2.5 targets a game.  So that would have been a nice number to have that the article leaves out, although the article they were quoting may have had it.

Plus, who thinks McCaffrey couldn't be effective in the same role Kamara is in with Brees?  LIS, I think Kamara is probably better so I'm not trying to say he's a product of the system, but McCaffrey has always been a superb route runner.  If he was playing in Payton's offense with Brees, I'm sure his outside numbers would look better than they are.  Even then, the absence of it shouldn't lead someone to say C-Mac doesn't matter to the passing game.  It ignores his purpose.  Teams don't throw to RBs because they expect WR production.  

Edited August 22, 2019 by iknowcool

[sammymvpknight]

14 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

It says, "There's only one clear RB1 who matters in the passing game"

In the article, they say, "The point is, the only running backs that truly MATTER in the passing game are those who can consistently line up outside and make plays."

It is asserting Christian McCaffrey does not matter in the passing game.  It is a ridiculous statement.  Regardless if you think Kamara had a higher level of difficulty than McCaffrey is irrelevant, I'm not arguing that because I would probably agree Kamara is better.  I'm arguing the idea that someone like McCaffrey, or even Gurley, is irrelevant to the passing game.  

Also, how many targets did Kamara get out wide?  All they say is RBs with more than 20 targets.  So if Kamara only got 40 targets there the entire season, does it REALLY add that much more unpredictability and diversity to an offense?  That would be 2.5 targets a game.  So that would have been a nice number to have that the article leaves out, although the article they were quoting may have had it.

Plus, who thinks McCaffrey couldn't be effective in the same role Kamara is in with Brees?  LIS, I think Kamara is probably better so I'm not trying to say he's a product of the system, but McCaffrey has always been a superb route runner.  If he was playing in Payton's offense with Brees, I'm sure his outside numbers would look better than they are.  Even then, the absence of it shouldn't lead someone to say C-Mac doesn't matter to the passing game.  It ignores his purpose.  Teams don't throw to RBs because they expect WR production.  

No...I agree that that statement was too strong. And it’s unfortunate because it was a beautifully performed job. But I don’t believe that was the point of the article. 

McCaffrey is a stud. He has my second highest graded RB coming from college in the last five years. He’s everything that I thought that he would be. But he’s not currently the receiver that Kamara is. He doesn’t have the outside opportunities or efficiency. I think that anyone arguing the contrary is wrong at this point in time. That’s absolutely nothing against CMac. 

[iknowcool]

17 minutes ago, sammymvpknight said:

He doesn’t have the outside opportunities or efficiency.

Efficiency split out wide?  Sure.  But overall?  Kamara averaged a only .7 more yards per catch, whereas McCaffrey averaged a far better catch percentage, had more targets, and fewer drops (0 drops on 122 targets - only Hopkins and Lockett did that on more than 50 targets). 

The difference between the two, at least for me, is that Kamara is just that much better after the catch.  C-Mac is very elusive, but Kamara is a savage in the open field.  Still, Kamara's longest catch last season was 42 yards.  McCaffrey's was 38.  Kamara had 7 20 yard plays and 1 40 yard play.  McCaffrey had 0 40 yards plays, but 11 20 yard plays (McCaffrey also had 6 20 yard and 3 40 yard run plays whereas Kamara only had 1 and 1).  So despite Kamara being better after the catch from what I have seen, and him being targeted more outside, he still didn't create as many explosive plays as McCaffrey.  So I think there is definitely an argument to be made in favor of McCaffrey being on Kamara's level as a receiver.

Edited August 22, 2019 by iknowcool

[sammymvpknight]

9 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

Efficiency split out wide?  Sure.  But overall?  Kamara averaged a only .7 more yards per catch, whereas McCaffrey averaged a far better catch percentage, had more targets, and fewer drops (0 drops on 122 targets - only Hopkins and Lockett did that on more than 50 targets). 

The difference between the two, at least for me, is that Kamara is just that much better after the catch.  C-Mac is very elusive, but Kamara is a savage in the open field.  Still, Kamara's longest catch last season was 42 yards.  McCaffrey's was 38.  Kamara had 7 20 yard plays and 1 40 yard play.  McCaffrey had 0 40 yards plays, but 11 20 yard plays (McCaffrey also had 6 20 yard and 3 40 yard run plays whereas Kamara only had 1 and 1).  So despite Kamara being better after the catch from what I have seen, and him being targeted more outside, he still didn't create as many explosive plays as McCaffrey.  So I think there is definitely an argument to be made in favor of McCaffrey being on Kamara's level as a receiver.

You make good points, but it’s tough to compare drop rates when they are being used so differently in the passing game. CMac is currently getting a TON of dump off passes and screens. Those are high percentage catch routes. Compare that to what Kamara does on the outside and it’s easy to see that Kamara runs a much higher percentage of low percentage plays...often with a defender (safety/CB/LB) lined up directly in front of him. He isn’t beating people by sneaking out of the backfield. 

And please don’t get me wrong...McCaffrey absolutely could get there. He’s incredibly young and hardworking...and running backs typically continue to improve in the receiving game through their late 20s. When it’s all said and done, I’d be very surprised if Barkley, Kamara, and McCaffrey aren’t among the greatest duel threat backs of all time. They are all very special in their own ways. This is the zenith of the RB position in the NFL...were lucky to be watching it. 

[iknowcool]

14 minutes ago, sammymvpknight said:

You make good points, but it’s tough to compare drop rates when they are being used so differently in the passing game. CMac is currently getting a TON of dump off passes and screens. Those are high percentage catch routes. Compare that to what Kamara does on the outside and it’s easy to see that Kamara runs a much higher percentage of low percentage plays...often with a defender (safety/CB/LB) lined up directly in front of him. He isn’t beating people by sneaking out of the backfield. 

That is true about the drops.  However, surely that would be reflective in his yards per reception though, no?  If McCaffrey was getting far more dump-offs than Kamara, it would make sense if Kamara had a better Y/R  by more than a miniscule amount but that isn't the case.  Not to mention McCaffrey had more explosive plays, that is why I am curious as to exactly how many targets and receptions Kamara made while split out wide in comparison to McCaffrey.  I know the article said his EPA was higher, but they don't provide anything else.  And unfortunately you can't access the Atlantic without a subscription.  McCaffrey may not line out wide as much as Kamara, but he does run a lot of routes out of the backfield.  For example (promise I'm not just trying to come at the Saints lol):
 

McCaffrey runs that angled route a lot, he gets his fair share of dump offs like any RB but I don't think it's as much as being implied.  

But I agree with you, this group is insane with how good they are out of the backfield.  So it's really just splitting hairs, they are both great

Edited August 22, 2019 by iknowcool

[sammymvpknight]

16 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

That is true about the drops.  However, surely that would be reflective in his yards per reception though, no?  If McCaffrey was getting far more dump-offs than Kamara, it would make sense if Kamara had a better Y/R  by more than a miniscule amount but that isn't the case.  Not to mention McCaffrey had more explosive plays, that is why I am curious as to exactly how many targets and receptions Kamara made while split out wide in comparison to McCaffrey.  I know the article said his EPA was higher, but they don't provide anything else.  And unfortunately you can't access the Atlantic without a subscription.  McCaffrey may not line out wide as much as Kamara, but he does run a lot of routes out of the backfield.  For example (promise I'm not just trying to come at the Saints lol):
 

McCaffrey runs that angled route a lot, he gets his fair share of dump offs like any RB but I don't think it's as much as being implied.  

But I agree with you, this group is insane with how good they are out of the backfield.  So it's really just splitting hairs, they are both great

Not necessarily. Kamara is likely the most spied RB in the NFL. It’s unbelievably rare for him to have open field ahead of him. He gets yards by having elite route running, acceleration, and the ability to slip tackles. And when you are lined up outside you have a defender in your face, making it more difficult to get YAC.

[TheVillain112]

1 hour ago, iknowcool said:

I'm confused by that article's logic.  How is the only way to get good receiving production out of a RB by lining them out wide?  That seems like arbitrary criteria, especially considering it leads them to the conclusion that Christian McCaffrey doesn't matter in the passing game... which is absolutely ridiculous.

And while yes, they are less efficient than a wide receiver, they are ignoring their roles are completely different.  A WR is not going to be open every play, so the idea that teams should just target WRs and TEs more isn't practical - unless they are suggesting teams A) take RBs off the field completely, which in turn makes it easier for defenses to determine if you are going to pass and B) keep a RB on the field solely as a decoy, which seems very limiting to the offense.  It's useful to have a RB who can consistently get open underneath and in the intermediate.  It is akin to saying, "Steph Curry is less efficient than DeAndre Jordan", ignoring that their roles are different.  

Christian McCaffrey (along with Norv Turner) was a BIG reason why Newton, prior to his injury last season, was so damn good.  However, if we were going by their logic, the Panthers would have been better off targeting Devin Funchess more than Christian McCaffrey.  It assumes every team has multiple WRs and TEs who can consistently get open throughout the game.  

If you have the athletic this article explains it in more detail: