What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

RB Christian McCaffrey, SF (3 Viewers)

The main thing I am confused about right now is why do we have 3 cone times for McCaffrey but not any other RBs?

I have been looking but I have not found it posted anywhere yet. 

For example.

If anyone has the other players times please let me know.
I saw the top RB times listed on NFL Network earlier.  Next best was like 6.87. Neither Fournette nor Cook were on the list (it was either top 5 or top 10, I can't remember) the last time listed was 6.99 so I assume, if they both ran the 3 cone, they were both north of 7 seconds. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 

NFL Network's Charley Casserly believes that Stanford RB Christian McCaffrey was the standout performer in positional drills on Friday.
Any questions about McCaffrey's athleticism should be put to bed at this point, because the Stanford star performed superbly on all fronts Friday. He notched a 40-yard dash of 4.48 seconds and was his typically smooth self in receiving drills. Just about the only down event for the 5-foot-11, 202-pounder came during Thursday's bench press, where he managed a modest 10 reps. Overall, McCaffrey has done nothing but help his stock in Indianapolis. He has Day 1 potential should a team fall in love with him.

 
 
Source: Charley Casserly on Twitter 
Mar 3 - 3:27 PM

 
@petekrum Are you starting to reconsider your projections for McCaffrey? Looks to be dominant at the Combine (as well as on the field). Right now the ONLY knock is his 10 reps on the bench press which essentially means nothing for the RB position 


Nope, I still don't think he'll be among the top five RBs in the class fantasy production wise.

 
I just hope there are people in my dynasty leagues that make the mistake of drafting him in the top couple of rookie picks.

 
There we go, it's ok to post on this subject if you're kissing McCaffreys ###, but not if you don't like him? That about cover it?
Do you have a reason for not liking him other than that he's white? Because that's not only racist, it's stupid.

 
There we go, it's ok to post on this subject if you're kissing McCaffreys ###, but not if you don't like him? That about cover it?
No, but the attitude that your leaguemates are "making a mistake" as if you know so much more than anyone else before anything has happened is what comes across as toolish. 

ETA -- If you take out "make the mistake" from your post, then I wouldn't have posted to you. It would have conveyed the same opinion in a much more respectful manner. You should try that look on sometime.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, but the attitude that your leaguemates are "making a mistake" as if you know so much more than anyone else before anything has happened is what comes across as toolish. 
If I don't think the guy is gonna be a good player it's not foolish at all.

 
He's definitely going to be a good NFL player. He has the pedigree and he's now put together a great NCAA career and topped it off with a great combine. Now it fully depends where he goes and how that team uses him as to whether or not he's a top FF producer.

 
Bleacher Report's John Middlekauff wrote that he has not spoken to an evaluator who believes that Stanford RB Christian McCaffrey will be available in Round 2.
McCaffrey aced his drills at the Combine on Friday, turning in a 40-yard dash of 4.48 seconds, a vertical leap of 37.5 inches and a 60-yard shuttle of 11.03 seconds. Middlekauff, himself, does not view McCaffrey as a first-rounder, but the Stanford star may well have locked up a Day 1 selection with his work this weekend.

 
 
Source: John Middlekauff on Twitter

 
I hate to say this, but honestly, if you look at McCaffrey's production, family tree,  and combine metrics, if he had the same pigmentation as most NFL RBs, is there any doubt he'd be a top 2 pick in FF leagues??  :shrug:
I think CJ Spiller is about the best comp of production, athleticism, and smallish size.  If I recall, he was a top 3 pick in most leagues.  

On the flip side he also had a much more impressive 40 time, was a top 10 NFL draft pick (whereas McCaffrey may or may not even make it into the 1st round), and had much weaker competition (there was only one other WR/RB drafted in the top 20 that year while there may be 5 other RB/WR drafted in the top 20 this year) so there are some pretty big differences as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I could see him being a slot guy and punt returner. No way he is a feature back. We go through this every few years with the next "great white hope" and it never pans out. No reason to think this time will be any different.

 
I could see him being a slot guy and punt returner. No way he is a feature back. We go through this every few years with the next "great white hope" and it never pans out. No reason to think this time will be any different.
Could you point out the all the "great white hopes" who had 2000-yard rushing seasons in college, and the best numbers at the NFL combine?

 
Technically, it's not racist to say there are very few white running backs in a significant role at the professional level. That's just a fact.

It's like calling me a racist because I observed that there were a lot of chinese people living in China.

Now, Petekrum seems to be walking that "racist" line, insinuating that, regardless of McCaffrey's measurables and prior successes, he's "lesser than" simply because he's white. Does Petekrum's narrative align with history? Sure, but it's a poor crutch when attempting to forecast future probabilities, without taking into account what might make McCaffrey different.

 
Could you point out the all the significant white RBs in the NFL?
Could you point out all the significant white RBs who ran for 2000 yards in college and killed it at the combine?

Because otherwise, there's no reason to compare them. His skin color has nothing to do with how fast he is, how good his vision is, his size or his shiftiness. It's as relevant as the number of NFL RBs who have a double "f" in their last name. 

 
Guess what: Christian McCaffery wasn't in the NFL over the last 30 years. 
You're right, and if you think he's gonna be the outlier than I encourage you to draft him before Fournette and Cook, ect, as I encourage everyone to do in all my leagues.

 
Technically, it's not racist to say there are very few white running backs in a significant role at the professional level. That's just a fact.

It's like calling me a racist because I observed that there were a lot of chinese people living in China.

Now, Petekrum seems to be walking that "racist" line, insinuating that, regardless of McCaffrey's measurables and prior successes, he's "lesser than" simply because he's white. Does Petekrum's narrative align with history? Sure, but it's a poor crutch when attempting to forecast future probabilities, without taking into account what might make McCaffrey different.
I couldn't be less racist on this subject. My stance is that in a league that hasn't seen a white RB of significance in 30 years I'm not gonna risk a top five rookie pick on a small white RB who ran roughshod over the Charmin soft Pac 10 for two years. 

 
Could you point out all the significant white RBs who ran for 2000 yards in college and killed it at the combine?

Because otherwise, there's no reason to compare them. His skin color has nothing to do with how fast he is, how good his vision is, his size or his shiftiness. It's as relevant as the number of NFL RBs who have a double "f" in their last name. 
Well Toby Gerhart is a good start. Same school, over 1800 yards, 28 TD's in one season, Doak Walker award, Archie Griffin award, Heisman runner-up in the closest voting ever, unanimous first team all-American.

Combine numbers:

Bench press:

Gerhart 22, Christian10

Vertical:

Gerhart 38, Christian 37.5

Broad jump:

Gerhart 118, Christian 121

3-come:

Gerhart 6.94, Cristian 6.57

And yet, for some reason Toby didn't make it...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
10 years ago there were very few black qbs or coaches, 20 years ago even less. White guys at rb are more visible when they miss because there aren't as many, just like black qbs were in the spotlight not that long ago. Just like any of these guys it comes down to the team that they are on more than their skin color or shoe size. Going into last year I would have said "DE with 9 fingers aren't as good as DE with 10 fingers" but JPP still played fine. 

 
Snorkelson said:
10 years ago there were very few black qbs or coaches, 20 years ago even less. White guys at rb are more visible when they miss because there aren't as many, just like black qbs were in the spotlight not that long ago. Just like any of these guys it comes down to the team that they are on more than their skin color or shoe size. Going into last year I would have said "DE with 9 fingers aren't as good as DE with 10 fingers" but JPP still played fine. 
Do you think the reason there are not any white RB's is the same as the reason there are not any DE's with 9 fingers? 

 
Do you think the reason there are not any white RB's is the same as the reason there are not any DE's with 9 fingers? 
Of course not, but that doesn't mean you ignore them if they have the talent to be successful. I won't act like he's a lock, but if someone likes him over cook or fournette it's fine by me, they have their warts too. They both have injury history, Cook didn't have a very good combine, fournette either really. Mixon and mccaffery could be the best rbs in this class but one has his transgressions caught on tape and one is squeaky clean white guy so everyone is scared to take them. Sitting at 1.02 in one league I'd be happy to trade back and get one of those 3 guys plus, and while cook and fournette are still good prospects in my eyes, neither is a sure bet either. 

 
petekrum said:
I couldn't be less racist on this subject. My stance is that in a league that hasn't seen a white RB of significance in 30 years I'm not gonna risk a top five rookie pick on a small white RB who ran roughshod over the Charmin soft Pac 10 for two years. 
Honestly, I see where you're coming from and almost went back and edited my post, but I got a tad drunk watching baseball and forgot.

Remaining risk averse, especially in the top of the top of a rookie draft, isn't a bad a strategy, and can save you plenty of headaches down the road. McCaffrey is a risk, no doubt about it.

I don't even know you, so I shouldn't have even said you were toeing that "racist" line over your stance and a few posts on one player. My apologies.

 
Honestly, I see where you're coming from and almost went back and edited my post, but I got a tad drunk watching baseball and forgot.

Remaining risk averse, especially in the top of the top of a rookie draft, isn't a bad a strategy, and can save you plenty of headaches down the road. McCaffrey is a risk, no doubt about it.

I don't even know you, so I shouldn't have even said you were toeing that "racist" line over your stance and a few posts on one player. My apologies.
No harm done sir. Anyone who knows me knows I'm the farthest thing from a racist. If I think a guy can play I don't care if he's black, white, yellow or green.

 
kutta said:
Well Toby Gerhart is a good start. Same school, over 1800 yards, 28 TD's in one season, Doak Walker award, Archie Griffin award, Heisman runner-up in the closest voting ever, unanimous first team all-American.

Combine numbers:

Bench press:

Gerhart 22, Christian10

Vertical:

Gerhart 38, Christian 37.5

Broad jump:

Gerhart 118, Christian 121

3-come:

Gerhart 6.94, Cristian 6.57

And yet, for some reason Tony didn't make it...
Comparing McCaffery to Gerhart is about as lazy a comparison as you could possibly make. They are nothing alike as running backs, and the color of their skin, or of their uniform, has nothing to do with their NFL potential.

 
Comparing McCaffery to Gerhart is about as lazy a comparison as you could possibly make. They are nothing alike as running backs, and the color of their skin, or of their uniform, has nothing to do with their NFL potential.
While this is true, and while I'm generally on the McCaffrey side, it was a fair answer to the question he was being asked.  He wasn't asked to name a RB with a similar running style.

 
Comparing McCaffery to Gerhart is about as lazy a comparison as you could possibly make. They are nothing alike as running backs, and the color of their skin, or of their uniform, has nothing to do with their NFL potential.
:confused:

You asked:

Could you point out all the significant white RBs who ran for 2000 yards in college and killed it at the combine?

Thats what I was answering.

 
:confused:

You asked:

Could you point out all the significant white RBs who ran for 2000 yards in college and killed it at the combine?

Thats what I was answering.
You posted someone who didn't rush for 2000 yards, and at the combine among RBs, finished 10th in 40 time, 4th in vertical, 9th in broad jump, 10th in shuttle, and 8th in 3-cone. In other words, the large, slow, plodding RB that we knew Gerhart was. That has no relevance to McCaffrey's prospects. Gerhart is in fact a lot more similar to Fournette, so if you want to use Gerhart as a comp, you should be downgrading Fournette, not McCaffrey.

 
Gerhart is more Tommy Vardell than McCaffrey.

Now that I throw that name out,  Vardell is an interesting comp to Fournette.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No harm done sir. Anyone who knows me knows I'm the farthest thing from a racist. If I think a guy can play I don't care if he's black, white, yellow or green.
You don't think the complete lack of any successful green RBs in the NFL implies that green ones who show potential are more suspect than others?  Because that seems to be the line of reasoning used by many posters for the somewhat less rare white ones.

 
You don't think the complete lack of any successful green RBs in the NFL implies that green ones who show potential are more suspect than others?  Because that seems to be the line of reasoning used by many posters for the somewhat less rare white ones.
Lots of white ones try and don't make it. When the same number of green ones try and don't make it, we can have that discussion.

 
You posted someone who didn't rush for 2000 yards, and at the combine among RBs, finished 10th in 40 time, 4th in vertical, 9th in broad jump, 10th in shuttle, and 8th in 3-cone. In other words, the large, slow, plodding RB that we knew Gerhart was. That has no relevance to McCaffrey's prospects. Gerhart is in fact a lot more similar to Fournette, so if you want to use Gerhart as a comp, you should be downgrading Fournette, not McCaffrey.
And yet Gerhart's vertical was more than Christian's, Gerhart's bench press was better, and Gerhart scored more TD's. We can all pick and choose stats.

 
They are physically nothing alike. However, Gerhart was pretty good behind Peterson and took the $ to go to JAX and flopped....like all the other RBs have done there since MJD. MJD was done at age 27 so he sucked his last 2 years there as well. He just did what many guys before him have done, leave a team, sign with a weaker team, flop and the career is over. 

He's got rare skills as a white RB.

 
If CM goes to Indy or Denver it's going to change people's perspective a bit. I was never a fan but I'm not going to be close minded the guy can ball at all levels and that's something to watch.

Tex

 
You don't think the complete lack of any successful green RBs in the NFL implies that green ones who show potential are more suspect than others?  Because that seems to be the line of reasoning used by many posters for the somewhat less rare white ones.
How many green RBs had good enough college careers and measurables to be first-round NFL draft picks?

If all the successful RBs are purple, how many purple RBs failed?

 
I don't think he'll be a 3-down featured back either.

Seeing how there is like three of those in the league, I'm not gonna let it bug me.

 
I don't think he'll be a 3-down featured back either.

Seeing how there is like three of those in the league, I'm not gonna let it bug me.
Well when some people here are saying he's the number one RB in this class, or at least very close to the top, you sure better be hoping for a 3 down back.

 
Well when some people here are saying he's the number one RB in this class, or at least very close to the top, you sure better be hoping for a 3 down back.
I don't know if that's true anymore.

Jamaal Charles wasn't a three down back. Didn't matter. He was better then most when he was out there.

Every team has three RBs. They've figured out it's OK to use them all.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top