Am I reading your question correctly?
Maybe, not sure haha.
Basically if you own BOTH, is it better or worse for your fantasy team if CMC comes back? (assuming you'd have a better RB2/Flex than Mason with CMC back)
So if your RBs are CMC, Mason, Barkley..... and you can only start 2 RBs. Is it better for your team if CMC comes back? Or if he doesn't and you get a locked in top 10 RB in Mason.
It's worse, IMO. Much, much worse. Because it's not just a question of Barkley v SF RBs (Barkley could easily outperform them) but you also need to factor in the replacement value of the #2 RB behind Barkley
So, IMO Barkley + Mason (or McCaffrey)>>>>Mason + McCaffrey
I know it's not always going to be Barkley in this comparison. At some point Mason+McCaffrey>>Either Mason or McCaffrey+ another RB
Not sure where that line is.
You're really not understanding what I'm asking at all lol
Forget Barkley... I'm saying he is locked into your line up no matter what. You have ONE running back spot, and own both CMC and Mason. Is it better for your fantasy team if CMC comes back and you start him (knowing it will likely be a split with mason, or cmc won't be 100%, or cmc will be pulled in blowouts, etc. etc), or is it better if CMC stays out and you start Mason as the sole back in SF and is a top 10 RB.
Basically if you have both on your roster, is it good or bad if CMC comes back? I would think as an owner of both, that you DON'T want cmc to come back.