Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Per Denver Post


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#61 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,740 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 12:17 AM

If that were a one year trend, and Fox didn't have such a clear offensive philosophy, I might agree. But Fox has been absolute since day one that his preference is to be a run first team, and now we have the backs and line to be dominant at running the ball. So I don't see any way Fox will suddenly shift his way of thinking just to bring in another elite receiver...especially with a young and unproven, albeit promising QB at the reigns.

This team has been crafted to run, and I don't see that changing any time soon. If anything, I would actually expect the passing numbers to go down this year, particularly for the first part of the season to try and ease Moore's transition to being the starter...as well as reduce the risk generally associated with young QB's.


well, that one sentence is the absolute truth.. if we may use the past as a very solid reference.. has he drafted 1 solid receiver who has stepped up more than 1 year?

I truthfully do not expect Fox to draft a WR that will make any impact at all this year.. I hope that a WR is drafted and succeeds in the slot.. however, I do not expect us to bring in a really solid #2 through the draft this year that takes pressure off Smitty..

I'm willing to bet no receiver drafted pulls in more than 850 yards...

and I'm fairly certain no FA brought in will fill in that void.. I'm hoping to hear a splash, but am not expecting it... at all.


I have always been optimistic about the Panthers.. but the track record for Fox and Co is going on 8 years without a solid WR drafted..

that's a long f**king time... only for ONE receiver.. ONE... not 2.. ONE.. in 8 years..

Edited by bleys, 09 April 2010 - 12:21 AM.


#62 carolinanimal

carolinanimal

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 892 posts
  • LocationConcord, NC

Posted 09 April 2010 - 06:03 AM

Because then you become too predictable. Also, we have two RB's that are good receivers out of the backfield, so why not utilize that skill-set. Good offenses take advantage of whatever weapons they have on hand.


You don't settle for less, you just don't cut off a bigger piece of pie than you need. If we were the Saints or '99 Rams, then sure Marshall would be a great fit, but not with the 2010 Panthers. True, we do have two starting caliber RB's, however, both of those guys have shown themselves to be very team oriented and intelligent, and realize that the shelf life of the average RB is the shortest of any position in the NFL, and that by sharing carries, they will prolong their careers.

But with the receivers, they are well known to be the prima donnas of the NFL and crave the attention and accolades that come with being labeled as elite (both Smitty and Marshall have demonstrated over time they each fit this profile). And when you're dealing with two guys that are still in their prime, and used to being THE guy, the chances that one will be happy to take a back seat to the other is extremely low. And in our run-first offense, there will not be enough balls to make both happy, so either both guys will produce at below elite numbers, or one outshines the other. Either way, it's a recipe for disaster and a huge gamble. Particularly when we mostly use our passing game to set up our running game, and don't need two game breaking WR's.


Exactly, there are no guarantees. But what you do is put yourself in the best position possible to retain them, not take a huge chunk of the money that would otherwise be earmarked for their extensions and invest it in a guy who you only need to produce a fraction of what he's capable of.

That would all but guarantee that you lose one of them...or really cut the depth which can kill a team as quick as anything. And I agree, I don't see a hometown discount coming from any of them, so we need every dollar we can get to keep them. After all, these are not just good guys on our team; they are among the best in the league at their respective positions. So losing any of them would be a huge loss....in fact, IMO, a bigger loss than whatever we would gain by signing Marshall.


What i am saying about the rbs is that in the nfl rbs like you say have the shortest life and are the easiest to replace. we all love dwill and jstew, but they can be replaced more easily than a wr can be replaced. are 2 1st round picks necessary at a position at rb? no! teams with better running games or just as good as ours dont have 2 1st round running backs. rb is the easiest position to fill. that is why so many rookies come in and have a immediate impact. wr it is rare and takes 2-3 years before they really get into their prime. so when you have one that is hitting his prime and is still young, why wouldnt you inquire how you could get him?

#63 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,090 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 09:37 AM

We do have D. Jarrett, and he is physically similar to Marshall. That should be enough to satisfy the savviest Panther fans :cryin:


My buddy used to drive a Hyundai that looked a lot like a Benz...

#64 Soul Rebel

Soul Rebel

    Respect the Rivera

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 11:39 AM

i know, i know the glass is half empty at The Bank, but rather than a first rounder this year for Marshall, how about next year's first rounder? Denver wants a first this year, but not many are biting. Next year's first would be less of an impact on a team that is only a player or two away from being a Super Bowl contender. I apologize if someone already suggested this, but here me out:

- with the lockout/cap issues for '11, next year's draft is diluted and the picks have less value within organizations.
- some have implied that we would give up our '11 pick to get back into the first this year (or at least the top of the 2nd round), so losing next year's pick isn't that bad.
- we would still have this year's 2nd rounder to take BPA and Marshall is far and away better than anything we can get in this year's (or next) draft.
- no rookie or remaining free agent could supply the talent to help Smitty that Marshall would and Marshall just started his prime.

#65 jramsey4

jramsey4

    "Blisters on me Fingers"

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 11:40 AM

i know, i know the glass is half empty at The Bank, but rather than a first rounder this year for Marshall, how about next year's first rounder? Denver wants a first this year, but not many are biting. Next year's first would be less of an impact on a team that is only a player or two away from being a Super Bowl contender. I apologize if someone already suggested this, but here me out:

- with the lockout/cap issues for '11, next year's draft is diluted and the picks have less value within organizations.
- some have implied that we would give up our '11 pick to get back into the first this year (or at least the top of the 2nd round), so losing next year's pick isn't that bad.
- we would still have this year's 2nd rounder to take BPA and Marshall is far and away better than anything we can get in this year's (or next) draft.
- no rookie or remaining free agent could supply the talent to help Smitty that Marshall would and Marshall just started his prime.


Been saying that since he was tendered. But once again it won't happen. Everything the FO has done this off-season says to the contrary of trading future picks.

#66 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,740 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 12:30 PM

he's worth a 1st.. we won't find a receiver of his caliber if we drafted one..

however, I'll be shocked to see it.. not giving up the 1st, but bringing in a quality receiver..

#67 Woodie

Woodie

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,097 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 01:21 PM

well, that one sentence is the absolute truth.. if we may use the past as a very solid reference.. has he drafted 1 solid receiver who has stepped up more than 1 year?

I truthfully do not expect Fox to draft a WR that will make any impact at all this year.. I hope that a WR is drafted and succeeds in the slot.. however, I do not expect us to bring in a really solid #2 through the draft this year that takes pressure off Smitty..

I'm willing to bet no receiver drafted pulls in more than 850 yards...

and I'm fairly certain no FA brought in will fill in that void.. I'm hoping to hear a splash, but am not expecting it... at all.


I have always been optimistic about the Panthers.. but the track record for Fox and Co is going on 8 years without a solid WR drafted..

that's a long f**king time... only for ONE receiver.. ONE... not 2.. ONE.. in 8 years..

I see what you're saying, but really, they haven't drafted all that many receivers early (IIRC, Colbert and Jarrett are the only two day one receivers we have taken under Fox). So it's really not a large enough sample size to guage their ability to develop a WR, particularly one that is both skilled and motivated. Also, we have a new WR coach, and really have no idea how well he'll be able to develop someone we bring in.

Also, like I've said before, we only really need someone to take some pressure off Smitty, we don't need a world beater. Heck, we'll be fine if we only get the production we got out of Colbert his rookie year (and 850 yards from a rookie would be more than enough). And personally, I think we have some very good receivers at TE and RB that we can better utilze to help open things up and become less predictable.

#68 Woodie

Woodie

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,097 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 01:44 PM

What i am saying about the rbs is that in the nfl rbs like you say have the shortest life and are the easiest to replace. we all love dwill and jstew, but they can be replaced more easily than a wr can be replaced. are 2 1st round picks necessary at a position at rb? no! teams with better running games or just as good as ours dont have 2 1st round running backs. rb is the easiest position to fill. that is why so many rookies come in and have a immediate impact. wr it is rare and takes 2-3 years before they really get into their prime. so when you have one that is hitting his prime and is still young, why wouldnt you inquire how you could get him?

I don't really agree with this. Sure, generally speaking, RB's are relatively easy to replace, but that is only true for average to good RB's, not elite ones, which I think both Williams and Stewart are. And in thinking about this, you also have to consider Fox's basic philosophy, which is first and foremost, to be able to run the ball. So the need for two great backs is much bigger than the need for two great receivers.

And with the backs we have along with our dominant run blocking line, we are an elite rushing team, one that can and does control the game on the ground. All we need out of our passing game is to unclog things up front and allow our backs to do their thing. Even with an aging Moose, we were able to do just that the year before last. Unfortunately, this past season's problems were more a result of Jake's struggles than problems with the WR's, along with it taking the defense over half the year to adjust to Meeks' system.

So for this team, I don't even care about the stats of whoever we bring in, I just think all we really need is someone dangerous enough that if the defense doesn't pay enough attention to him, he can burn them. In fact, as I've stated before, if we did bring in a guy in his prime, it could easily cause big problems since we just don't pass the ball enough to make everyone happy.

#69 carolinanimal

carolinanimal

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 892 posts
  • LocationConcord, NC

Posted 09 April 2010 - 03:07 PM

I don't really agree with this. Sure, generally speaking, RB's are relatively easy to replace, but that is only true for average to good RB's, not elite ones, which I think both Williams and Stewart are. And in thinking about this, you also have to consider Fox's basic philosophy, which is first and foremost, to be able to run the ball. So the need for two great backs is much bigger than the need for two great receivers.

And with the backs we have along with our dominant run blocking line, we are an elite rushing team, one that can and does control the game on the ground. All we need out of our passing game is to unclog things up front and allow our backs to do their thing. Even with an aging Moose, we were able to do just that the year before last. Unfortunately, this past season's problems were more a result of Jake's struggles than problems with the WR's, along with it taking the defense over half the year to adjust to Meeks' system.

So for this team, I don't even care about the stats of whoever we bring in, I just think all we really need is someone dangerous enough that if the defense doesn't pay enough attention to him, he can burn them. In fact, as I've stated before, if we did bring in a guy in his prime, it could easily cause big problems since we just don't pass the ball enough to make everyone happy.


i just think with the current trend towards wr that we should make our offense more flexible. if you stop the run game you stop the panthers plain and simple. it may be hard to stop but it is still possible. teams like minnesota and others who are great runstoppers can just about shut our run game down. i would like a team that can be good in both aspects, not just threatening with the pass. it is harder to stop a team with a elite passing game than it is to stop a team with a elite running game. that is why the teams with the best offenses have a elite passing game and usually dont have a elite running game. i would like a top 10-15 passing game and a top 1-5 running game. that would be a awesome offense.

#70 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,740 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 03:20 PM

I see what you're saying, but really, they haven't drafted all that many receivers early (IIRC, Colbert and Jarrett are the only two day one receivers we have taken under Fox). So it's really not a large enough sample size to guage their ability to develop a WR, particularly one that is both skilled and motivated. Also, we have a new WR coach, and really have no idea how well he'll be able to develop someone we bring in.

Also, like I've said before, we only really need someone to take some pressure off Smitty, we don't need a world beater. Heck, we'll be fine if we only get the production we got out of Colbert his rookie year (and 850 yards from a rookie would be more than enough). And personally, I think we have some very good receivers at TE and RB that we can better utilze to help open things up and become less predictable.


My concern wouldn't have anything to do with "did the receivers we draft pan out"..

or why haven't we gone for more receivers so that maybe 1 pans out..

it's really about for years now there has been a gaping hole that hasn't been filled..

regardless of whether the few didn't pan out or whether we should have tried more often.. the fact still remains, 8 years later.. Fox has not drafted/brought in a solid receiver where there has been a HUGE hole for years..

Yes we had Moose, but you don't wait for players to leave, retire, die before you plan ahead..

it has held us back from winning big games.. yet, nothing has ever been done about it.

just frustrating.. since it's a wide range issue now, I'm voicing what I've been saying for years.. so can Fox develop a WR? what pisses me off based on the track record, I'm not so sure he gives a damn.. lol (until someone important tells him how to do his job, *ahem* Smitty *ahem*)

and when we start trying to find a #2 receiver in our TE's and RB's, let's just go ahead and move on..

To replace a #2 WR in our TE's and RB's, means we are only ignoring the problem. Not helping.

We have TEs and RBs who can catch.. that isn't our problem. We have 11 players on the field. 1 WR and 3 or 4 TE's/RBs? or 2 WR and 2 TE's and 1 RB?

see my point? to act like TE and RB is going to replace the #2 isn't an idea I like. That covers up the problem, it doesn't solve it.

Bring in a #2 and then we have TEs, RBs, and a 2nd receiver to spread the field..

Edited by bleys, 09 April 2010 - 03:29 PM.


#71 pantherclaw

pantherclaw

    Wise Ass

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,054 posts
  • LocationGalveston

Posted 09 April 2010 - 08:53 PM

There is a lot of talent in this draft. I'm sure we'll be able to find a receiver or 2.
Will they need to come in and set the league on fire? Hell no they don't.
They just need to take advantage of the single coverage they will often see.
Steve Smith, is still our #1. Regardless what he says, Steve Smith is the ultimate competitor, he will always give his best, and cause of that...the defenses will continue to see him as the #1 receiver on the team, regardless of where he lines up.
We don't need an elite passing attack. We just need receivers who will be able to help balance out our attack, regardless we'll always be a run first team.
If people recall back to '03, going into the playoffs, we were the most balanced offense in the league . . and we had the most deep passes of any team in the league. From a run first team! From a JOHN FOX team. That can happened again without having BM.

#72 Woodie

Woodie

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,097 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 11:34 PM

i just think with the current trend towards wr that we should make our offense more flexible. if you stop the run game you stop the panthers plain and simple. it may be hard to stop but it is still possible. teams like minnesota and others who are great runstoppers can just about shut our run game down. i would like a team that can be good in both aspects, not just threatening with the pass. it is harder to stop a team with a elite passing game than it is to stop a team with a elite running game. that is why the teams with the best offenses have a elite passing game and usually dont have a elite running game. i would like a top 10-15 passing game and a top 1-5 running game. that would be a awesome offense.

I'd counter this by saying that this current trend towards the passing game actually makes our dominant running attack that much more dangerous. Teams are loading up on fast quick defenders, who are also primarily pass rushers. Not many teams are capable of handling our massive OL and stable of backs. So while I do agree that we need to become more flexible (by better utilizing the TE's and RB's in the passing game), I don't think we need our receiving unit to equate to what we have in our running game. With current trends, we now have an advantage over most teams, so I think our best policy would be to continue using the running game to exploit those trends.

Also, IMO, most of our recent problems in the passing game have had more to do with Jake (and his arm troubles) than the WR's. And that just by making the switch to Moore, our passing attack should significantly improve and be good enough to keep teams honest. I really do think he is capable of playing efficiently and getting the ball to the playmakers when teams stack the box in an effort to stop the run. So all we really need is another threat (which I think a rookie is more than capable of) at WR, not someone to be Smitty's equal.

#73 Woodie

Woodie

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,097 posts

Posted 10 April 2010 - 12:14 AM

My concern wouldn't have anything to do with "did the receivers we draft pan out"..

or why haven't we gone for more receivers so that maybe 1 pans out..

it's really about for years now there has been a gaping hole that hasn't been filled..

regardless of whether the few didn't pan out or whether we should have tried more often.. the fact still remains, 8 years later.. Fox has not drafted/brought in a solid receiver where there has been a HUGE hole for years..

Yes we had Moose, but you don't wait for players to leave, retire, die before you plan ahead..

it has held us back from winning big games.. yet, nothing has ever been done about it.

just frustrating.. since it's a wide range issue now, I'm voicing what I've been saying for years.. so can Fox develop a WR? what pisses me off based on the track record, I'm not so sure he gives a damn.. lol (until someone important tells him how to do his job, *ahem* Smitty *ahem*)

and when we start trying to find a #2 receiver in our TE's and RB's, let's just go ahead and move on..

To replace a #2 WR in our TE's and RB's, means we are only ignoring the problem. Not helping.

We have TEs and RBs who can catch.. that isn't our problem. We have 11 players on the field. 1 WR and 3 or 4 TE's/RBs? or 2 WR and 2 TE's and 1 RB?

see my point? to act like TE and RB is going to replace the #2 isn't an idea I like. That covers up the problem, it doesn't solve it.

Bring in a #2 and then we have TEs, RBs, and a 2nd receiver to spread the field..

I hear what your saying about the WR. And to a point I agree. But I think one problem we have had is that there have usually been more immediate needs than receiver, so with our early picks, we usually looked to fill those needs first. But, when they did try to find a receiver, unfortunately, they chose the wrong guy (was the problem scouting, Hurney/Fox, or something else entirely, I can't say). But I do think they have recognized the need, and tried to fill it.

Just imagine if DJ Hackett played for us as well as he did for Seattle (when he was healthy), or if Jarrett came in with a hunger and determination to excel instead of a sense of entitlement, then this would be a moot point. Heck, if Colbert could have even given us the production he did in his rookie year, WR would be a much lesser need right now. So I don't think the problem is that they didn't do enough, just that they didn't make the right decisions...and hopefully with a better scouting staff and new WR coach, we will get this one right.

I do want to make the point, though, that I was not trying to say we can use the TE's or RB's as the #2 receiver, but that along with Smitty and a decent #2, they can greatly enhance our passing game if we choose to use them. To be honest, I think if we can add a decent #2 (ideally someone with speed), we have the makings of an outstanding passing attack (although it would still be secondary to our running game). The only question is whether or not Fox will trust Davidson to devise a more creative gameplan, and would he trust Moore to carry it out. But, IMO, the pieces are there.

To be clear, the only thing I am not sold on is picking up a superstar WR like Marshall since I don't see enough balls in our offense to make both him and Smitty happy (which I think would eventually boil over into some drama we don't want). I also think his cost would greatly hurt our ability to re-sign some of our core guys that will be looking for their own payday within the next year or so. But I absolutely do think we need to take a WR early, and I honestly believe there are guys that will be available to us that can provide enough of a threat to free up Smitty.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.