49ers RB Raheem Mostert requests trade

[Soko]

9 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

Yes both are good running backs

[wackywabbit]

1 hour ago, Yin-Yang said:

Yes both are good running backs

One is an MVP running back.

Edited July 12, 2020 by wackywabbit

[Forge]

If I had to guess what happens, I'd say that the 49ers convert next years base to a signing bonus (or about 2 million of it) to give him money right now while also limiting the immediate cap hit. Next year, they can look at an extension, or possibly just cut him (since it's unlikely he's going to get an extension at age 29) and it's a wash. 

I think being good to players and having a good reputation with the players is important to this regime, so they are going to want to find some common ground here. 

[Soko]

38 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

One is an MVP running back.

[Hunter2_1]

Running Backs matter, they just have to be good enough to matter more. See McCaff putting the offense on his shoulder. Tell me he's inconsequential. 

 

But Mostert does not move the needle like that. We'd have him - what a great fit for NE (ST wiz, receiving back, YAC) but the recomp has to be lowww for SF. 5th or 6th?

Edited July 12, 2020 by Hunter2_1

[TecmoSuperJoe]

10 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

One is an MVP running back.

You say that like it means anything anymore.  

Edited July 12, 2020 by TecmoSuperJoe

[TecmoSuperJoe]

5 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Running Backs matter, they just have to be good enough to matter more. See McCaff putting the offense on his shoulder. Tell me he's inconsequential. 

 

But Mostert does not move the needle like that. We'd have him - what a great fit for NE (ST wiz, receiving back, YAC) but the recomp has to be lowww for SF. 5th or 6th?

Hmmm...McCaffrey and the 28th ranked offense in terms of DOVA. I love him, but even the best running back now can't make an offense a top unit alone. Need the quality QB. The QB doesn't need the quality running back though. 

Edited July 12, 2020 by TecmoSuperJoe

[Chrissooner49er]

On 7/9/2020 at 11:55 AM, Forge said:

We could have made it happen. But then we wouldn't have Solomon Thomas, and that's simply not acceptable

While I liked Thomas (still do, but we are still waiting for him to "shine"), McCaffrey was my fave for that Draft. Wanted him to be a 9er badly. 

[theJ]

On 7/12/2020 at 4:52 AM, TecmoSuperJoe said:

On 7/12/2020 at 3:56 AM, Hunter2_1 said:

Running Backs matter, they just have to be good enough to matter more. See McCaff putting the offense on his shoulder. Tell me he's inconsequential. 

 

But Mostert does not move the needle like that. We'd have him - what a great fit for NE (ST wiz, receiving back, YAC) but the recomp has to be lowww for SF. 5th or 6th?

Hmmm...McCaffrey and the 28th ranked offense in terms of DOVA. I love him, but even the best running back now can't make an offense a top unit alone. Need the quality QB. The QB doesn't need the quality running back though. 

Yep.  You might be able to accurately make an argument that some RB's are better than others, and that having one of those guys will lead to more rushing success.  But you'll be less than successful trying to make an argument that rushing actually helps score points.  And that is what offenses are trying to do.

Don't sign RB's to big deals and expect they're going to lead you to a big time offense.  Those days are over just like the reign of the mid-range jump shot.

[theJ]

On 7/8/2020 at 7:58 PM, 11sanchez11 said:

coleman and mostert got the exact same # of carries last year, mostert had 230 more rushing yards than coleman

I know this is like a week later, but i just wanted to point out that Coleman saw 8 man boxes on 40% of his rushes (highest % in the league) vs. 32% for Mostert (also high).  

SF knows what they're doing with the ground game, so both were successful.  But some of that rushing differential can be attributed to that particular statistic.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

McCaffrey is stuck in Carolina for at least two more years right? 4th year plus 5th year option that the team will probably pick up if he keeps on grinding. And then even after that there is the potential franchise tag. Yikes. I wonder as the years go by will more and more players opt to play another position instead of runningback. The big money is dwindling, and the shelf-life of a quality runner caps off at about 30. QB, WR, S, CB you can keep going. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by TecmoSuperJoe

[iknowcool]

32 minutes ago, theJ said:

Yep.  You might be able to accurately make an argument that some RB's are better than others, and that having one of those guys will lead to more rushing success.  But you'll be less than successful trying to make an argument that rushing actually helps score points.  And that is what offenses are trying to do.

This is literally true for every offensive position outside of QB.  Should no non-QB be signed to a big contract then? 

I don't know why people still think it's fair to present RB as the only position that won't single-handedly turn around a unit.  No position does, but I don't see anyone ever argue that (as an example) the Cardinals messed up signing Larry Fitzgerald to a fat contract years ago.  

Mostert's problem isn't being a RB.  It's that he's not all that special of one, especially for an offense that won't have any issue running the ball with or without him.  But the idea that a QB doesn't need a quality RB, thus making a RB less important, doesn't make any sense because it's true for every position.  A good QB doesn't need a good RB, or a good WR, or a good LT, but you're not gonna let everyone walk.  

Edited July 14, 2020 by iknowcool

[theJ]

7 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

This is literally true for every offensive position outside of QB.  Should no non-QB be signed to a big contract then?  How good were the Browns offenses with Joe Thomas, or the Texans offenses with Hopkins before Watson?

 

It's not though.  Positions that contribute toward passing efficiency are having an impact on scoring.  Which includes almost every position on offense, except RB.  Yeah some RB's contribute toward the passing game, but in general passing to RB's is the least efficient form of passing as well.

Do you need a QB?  Absolutely you do.  And it is the most important position on the field, by far.  But to make those QB's as efficient as possible, you need receiving weapons and you need blocking.  But you don't need blocking.  And the age old adage of needing a rushing game to set up the passing game is also not true.

[Hunter2_1]

2 hours ago, theJ said:

  But you'll be less than successful trying to make an argument that rushing actually helps score points.  And that is what offenses are trying to do.

 

I don't understand this. Rushing is a way of scoring points? As a fan of a team that had to rely on rushing when in RZ to score TDs two seasons in a row (one got us to the SB) (and obvs not the only way we scored), I learned the value of rushing. Unless I've misinterpreted your statement? 

[theJ]

Just now, Hunter2_1 said:

I don't understand this. Rushing is a way of scoring points? As a fan of a team that had to rely on rushing when in RZ to score TDs two seasons in a row (one got us to the SB) (and obvs not the only way we scored), I learned the value of rushing. Unless I've misinterpreted your statement? 

Scoring efficiency is more closely correlated with passing efficiency/success than rushing efficiency/success.

They both still correlate, just much more strongly with passing numbers.